Highway Concrete Pavement Technology

Development and Testing: Volume I—

Field Evaluation of Strategic Highway

Research Program (SHRP) C-202 Test 

Sites (Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR))

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-RD-02-082 AUGUST 2006

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296
Foreword 

Distress in portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements can be caused by aggregate that is 

reactive to alkalies in the environment. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

monitored test sections of various treatments designed to mitigate this type of distress in PCC 

pavements that contained aggregates known to be reactive with alkalies. The pavement 

treatments were part of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). The test sections were 

located in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Delaware. Three pavement sites had suffered 

some degree of distress due to alkali-silica reaction (ASR) prior to treatment, and one pavement 

was newly constructed with known reactive aggregates. 

The test sections in all four States were monitored annually for 5 years, from 1994 through 1998. 

The monitoring was done by Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) visual surveys, faulting 

measurements, relative humidity testing, petrographic examination, and compressive strength 

and elastic modulus testing. Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing was also performed at 

all four test sites. This report describes and quantifies the differences between test sections and 

the results of the various treatments used. 

Gary L. Henderson 

Director 

Office of Infrastructure 

 Research and Development 

Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its 

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

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ 

names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the 

document. 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

 1. Report No. 

FHWA-RD-02-082

 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

 Strategic Highway Research Program August 2006 

Highway Concrete Pavement Technology Development and Testing: 6. Performing Organization Code 

Volume I—Field Evaluation of Strategic Highway Research Program 

(SHRP) C-202 Test Sites (Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR)) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

 7. Author(s)

Paul Krauss—Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 

Jagannath Mallela, Brian Aho—ERES Division of ARA, Inc. 

 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

 11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-94-C-00009 

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 

330 Pfingsten Road 

Northbrook, IL 60062-2095 

ERES Division of Applied 

Research Associates, Inc. 

505 W. University Avenue 

Champaign, IL 61820-3915 

 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final Report 

 Office of Engineering and Highway Operations R&D 

 Federal Highway Administration 

 6300 Georgetown Pike 

 McLean, VA 22101-2296

 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

 15. Supplementary Notes 

FHWA Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: Monte Symons, P.E. This work was conducted under subcontract by Wiss, 

Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 

The authors are thankful for the generous help from the participating transportation departments of Nevada, California, New 

Mexico, and Delaware. The authors also wish to thank Mathew Sherman (formerly with WJE) for his assistance in collecting field 

data for this project and Mr. Leslie Titus-Glover (ERES) for his help during statistical analysis of nondestructive evaluation data.

 16. Abstract 

This study consists of continued field evaluations of treatments to four pavements suffering from distress due to alkali-silica

reaction (ASR). One set of treatments was evaluated on existing pavements in Delaware, California, and Nevada that already 

showed ASR-related distress. Two of the existing pavements were located in relatively dry environments, while the third (in 

Delaware) was located in a moderately wet environment. The fourth site, in New Mexico, consisted of treatments on newly 

constructed pavements built with known reactive aggregates. At the Nevada site, the pavement was treated with methacrylate 

(HMM), silane, linseed oil, or lithium hydroxide. The Delaware site used only lithium hydroxide, while the California site used

only methacrylate. The test sections in New Mexico consisted of pavement that contained admixtures as ASR inhibitors. There 

were two rates of addition of lithium hydroxide, a 25 percent replacement of cement with combinations of Class C and F fly ashes, 

and a high-range water reducer (HRWR). This evaluation showed that, unfortunately, none of the treatments were significantly 

beneficial to pavements with moderate to advanced ASR damage. The methacrylate sealer was effective when applied to a bridge 

deck and extended the pavement service life 3 to 5 years or more when applied in two to three coats. The results indicate that,

regardless of the treatment, upward moisture migration from the subgrade to the bottom of the pavement is sufficient to support

continued ASR even in dry desert climates. Preliminary results from the New Mexico test sites show that Class F ash, LOMAR 

(HRWA), or blended Class C and Class F ash may improve resistance to ASR distress. However, Class C ash can make 

deterioration much worse. Careful selection of the fly ash is necessary when attempting to mitigate known reactive aggregate. 

Continued monitoring of this test site is recommended. 

 17. Key Words 

Concrete pavement, durability, compressive strength, rapid 

chloride permeability test, AC impedance test, life cycle cost 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through 

the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 

22161.

 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) 

 21. No of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 185 

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

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx 

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2

 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E e 380. 

(Revised March 2003)
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 1 

Chapter 2. Summary of Results from Winnemucca, NV.......................................................... 3 

Summary of Pavement Condition by Section........................................................................... 5 

Joint Distress............................................................................................................................. 7 

Severe Map Cracking at Joints ............................................................................................... 11 

Wheelpath and Centerline Rating ........................................................................................... 14 

Transverse Cracking ............................................................................................................... 15 

Modulus and Strength Testing................................................................................................ 19 

Relative Humidity Measurements........................................................................................... 22 

Petrographic Studies ............................................................................................................... 23 

Summary for Winnemucca, NV Test Site .............................................................................. 25 

Chapter 3. Summary of Results from Newark, DE ................................................................. 27 

Summary of Pavement Section Condition.............................................................................. 28 

Joint Distress and Travel Lane Observations.......................................................................... 32 

Transverse Cracking ............................................................................................................... 36 

Modulus and Strength Testing................................................................................................ 37 

Relative Humidity Measurements........................................................................................... 39 

Petrographic Examination....................................................................................................... 40 

Summary of Newark, DE Test Site......................................................................................... 41 

Chapter 4. Summary of Test Results From Boron, CA .......................................................... 43 

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 43 

Boron Overhead...................................................................................................................... 43 

Pavement Sections ............................................................................................................ 43 

Observations ..................................................................................................................... 44 

Status of Test Sections...................................................................................................... 44 

Map Cracking.......................................................................................................................... 46 

Joint Distress........................................................................................................................... 49 

Wheelpath Distress ................................................................................................................. 55 

Centerline Distress.................................................................................................................. 56 

Elastic Modulus and Compressive Strength ........................................................................... 56 

Relative Humidity Measurements........................................................................................... 57 

Petrographic Examination....................................................................................................... 59 

Summary of Boron, CA Test Site........................................................................................... 61 

Chapter 5. Summary of Test Results From Albuquerque, NM ............................................. 63 

Condition of Pavement Sections............................................................................................. 66 

Transverse Joint Spalling........................................................................................................ 69 

Map Cracking.......................................................................................................................... 71 

Modulus Testing of Cores....................................................................................................... 72 

Relative Humidity................................................................................................................... 74 

Petrographic Examination....................................................................................................... 77 

Summary of Lomas Boulevard, Albuquerque, NM, Test Site................................................ 77 
iv 

Chapter 6. Falling Weight Deflectometer Results ................................................................... 81 

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 81 

Methodology........................................................................................................................... 81 

Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 81 

Data Assembly.................................................................................................................. 83 

Performance Indicators and Their Significance...................................................................... 83 

FWD Data Analysis for the Nevada Site ................................................................................ 84 

Subgrade k-value .............................................................................................................. 85 

Do (Center Slab)................................................................................................................ 86 

EPCC (Center Slab)............................................................................................................. 86 

Do (Joint—Leave Side)..................................................................................................... 87 

FWD Data Analysis for the Delaware Site............................................................................. 89 

Subgrade k-value .............................................................................................................. 90 

Do (Center Slab)................................................................................................................ 90 

Backcalculated Concrete Modulus, EPCC .......................................................................... 91 

Do (Joint—Leave Side)..................................................................................................... 92 

LTE (Joint)........................................................................................................................ 93 

FWD Data Analysis for the California Site ............................................................................ 95 

Subgrade k-value .............................................................................................................. 95 

Do (Center Slab)................................................................................................................ 95 

Backcalculated Concrete Modulus, EPCC .......................................................................... 97 

Do (Joint—Leave Side)..................................................................................................... 97 

LTE (Joint)........................................................................................................................ 98 

FWD Data Analysis for the New Mexico Site...................................................................... 100 

Subgrade k-value ............................................................................................................ 100 

Do (Center Slab).............................................................................................................. 100 

Backcalculated EPCC (Center Slab) ................................................................................. 102 

Do (Joint– Leave Side).................................................................................................... 102 

LTE (Joint)...................................................................................................................... 103 

Summary of FWD Testing.................................................................................................... 105 

Appendix A................................................................................................................................ 107 

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................ 127 

Appendix C................................................................................................................................ 145 

Appendix D................................................................................................................................ 159 

References.................................................................................................................................. 173 
v 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Overall view of Winnemucca, NV test site..................................................................... 4 

Figure 2. Winnemucca, NV test section layout. ............................................................................. 4 

Figure 3. Joint distress of high severity (Winnemucca, NV).......................................................... 7 

Figure 4. Joint distress of medium severity (Winnemucca, NV).................................................... 8 

Figure 5. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1994)......................................... 9 

Figure 6. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1995)......................................... 9 

Figure 7. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1996)....................................... 10 

Figure 8. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1997)....................................... 10 

Figure 9. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1998)....................................... 11 

Figure 10. Actual joint length of each severity level for each section 

(Winnemucca, NV, 1998). .................................................................................................... 11 

Figure 11. Photograph showing widespread map cracking in shoulder area 

of Winnemucca test site. ....................................................................................................... 12 

Figure 12. Close-up of map cracking with efflorescence (Winnemucca, NV)............................. 12 

Figure 13. Number of areas of severe map cracking in each section 

from 1995 through 1998 (Winnemucca, NV)....................................................................... 13 

Figure 14. Total area of severe map cracking for each section for 1995 through 1998 

(Winnemucca, NV). .............................................................................................................. 14 

Figure 15. Full-width transverse cracking in test section (Winnemucca, NV)............................. 16 

Figure 16. Transverse cracking with intersecting longitudinal crack (Winnemucca, NV). ......... 16 

Figure 17. Amount and severity of transverse cracking for all sections 

(Winnemucca, NV, 1994). .................................................................................................... 17 

Figure 18. Amount and severity of transverse cracking for all sections 

(Winnemucca, NV, 1995). .................................................................................................... 17 

Figure 19. Amount and severity of transverse cracking for all sections 

(Winnemucca, NV, 1996). .................................................................................................... 18 

Figure 20. Amount and severity of transverse cracking for all sections 

(Winnemucca, NV, 1997). .................................................................................................... 18 

Figure 21. Amount and severity of transverse cracking for all sections 

(Winnemucca, NV, 1998). .................................................................................................... 19 

Figure 22. North and south views of the Newark, DE site. .......................................................... 27 

Figure 23. Typical longitudinal cracking (Newark, DE). ............................................................. 29 

Figure 24. Typical longitudinal cracking and example of asphalt patching 

along joint between shoulder and travel lane (Newark, DE). ............................................... 29 
vi 

Figure 25. Area of each slab affected by map cracking over the 5 years of the study 

(Newark, DE)........................................................................................................................ 31 

Figure 26. Area of each slab affected by map cracking expressed as a percentage 

of the total section area (Newark, DE).................................................................................. 32 

Figure 27. Asphalt concrete patching along transverse joint in travel lane (Newark, DE). ........ 33 

Figure 28. Asphalt patch in center of section in travel lane (Newark, DE).................................. 33 

Figure 29. Length and severity of joint distress for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1994)........... 34 

Figure 30. Length and severity of joint distress for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1995)........... 34 

Figure 31. Length and severity of joint distress for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1996)........... 35 

Figure 32. Length and severity of joint distress for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1997)........... 35 

Figure 33. Length and severity of joint distress for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1998)........... 36 

Figure 34. Summary of transverse cracking in each section for the five inspections 

(Newark, DE)........................................................................................................................ 37 

Figure 35. Treated section on Boron overhead structure over State Route 58 

looking east (Boron, CA)...................................................................................................... 43 

Figure 36. Photograph showing part of Boron, CA, test site, M2, Station 250............................ 45 

Figure 37. Photograph showing part of Boron, CA, test site, M3, Station 160............................ 45 

Figure 38. Plan view of Boron, CA, test site. ............................................................................... 46 

Figure 39. Example of high-severity map cracking (Boron, CA)................................................. 47 

Figure 40. Close-up photograph showing typical map cracking (Boron, CA). ............................ 47 

Figure 41. Map cracking as a percentage for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1995).............. 48 

Figure 42. Map cracking as a percentage for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1996).............. 48 

Figure 43. Map cracking as a percentage for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1997).............. 49 

Figure 44. Map cracking as a percentage for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1998).............. 49 

Figure 45. Photograph showing medium-severity joint distress (Boron, CA). ............................ 50 

Figure 46. Photograph showing an example of high-severity joint distress (Boron, CA)............ 50 

Figure 47. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1995)........................................... 51 

Figure 48. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1996)........................................... 52 

Figure 49. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1997)........................................... 52 

Figure 50. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1998)........................................... 53 

Figure 51. True length of joint spalls at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1995)...................... 53 

Figure 52. True length of joint spalls at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1996)...................... 54 

Figure 53. True length of joint spalls at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1997)...................... 54 

Figure 54. True length of joint spalls at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1998)...................... 55 
vii 

Figure 55. New Mexico ASR test section layout—westbound approach slabs to Lomas 

Boulevard (State Route 352) bridge over I-25...................................................................... 64 

Figure 56. Lomas Boulevard westbound structure over I-40 (Albuquerque, NM). ..................... 65 

Figure 57. Photographs of all sections in Albuquerque, NM. ...................................................... 68 

Figure 58. Area of map cracking as a percentage of the total area (all sections, 

Albuquerque, NM)................................................................................................................ 71 

Figure 59. Modulus of elasticity test results for cores in the dry condition (all sections, 

Albuquerque, NM)................................................................................................................ 73 

Figure 60. Modulus of elasticity test results for cores in the saturated condition 

(all sections, Albuquerque, NM)........................................................................................... 74 

Figure 61. Falling Weight Deflectometer. .................................................................................... 81 

Figure 62. Illustration of testing locations. ................................................................................... 83 

Figure 63. Static k-values for Nevada test section........................................................................ 85 

Figure 64. Nevada test site—Do from center slab......................................................................... 86 

Figure 65. Nevada test site—EPCC from center slab. .................................................................... 87 

Figure 66. Nevada test site—Do from leave side; deflection LTE (wheelpath). .......................... 88 

Figure 67. Average LTE values for the various treatment sections for the Nevada site. ............. 89 

Figure 68. Average temperatures at time of joint testing for the Nevada site. ............................. 89 

Figure 69. Static k-values for the Delaware site........................................................................... 90 

Figure 70. Delaware test site—Do from center slab test. ............................................................. 91 

Figure 71. Delaware test site—EPCC from center slab................................................................ 92 

Figure 72. Delaware test site—Do from leave side. ..................................................................... 93 

Figure 73. Delaware test site—LTE. ............................................................................................ 94 

Figure 74. Average temperatures at time of joint testing for the Delaware site. .......................... 94 

Figure 75. Static k-value for California test section. .................................................................... 96 

Figure 76. California test site—Do from center slab..................................................................... 96 

Figure 77. California test site—EPCC from center slab............................................................... 97 

Figure 78. California test site—Do from leave side. .................................................................... 98 

Figure 79. California test site—LTE. ........................................................................................... 99 

Figure 80. Static k-value for New Mexico test........................................................................... 101 

Figure 81. New Mexico test site—Do from center slab. ............................................................ 101 

Figure 82. New Mexico test site—EPCC from center slab. ....................................................... 102 

Figure 83. New Mexico test site—Do from leave side............................................................... 103 

Figure 84. Temperature variation during FWD testing for the New Mexico site....................... 104 
viii 

Figure 85. New Mexico test site—LTE...................................................................................... 104 

Figure A1. Photographs of typical joint sections for each test section (Winnemucca, NV). ..... 107 

Figure B1. Photographs of typical area of each section (Newark, DE)...................................... 128 

Figure C1. Photographs showing typical areas of each section (Boron, CA)............................. 145 
ix 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Inspection dates and conditions (Winnemucca, NV)........................................................ 5 

Table 2. Wheelpath and centerline ratings for 1995 and 1998; number of slabs 

with each rating (Winnemucca, NV). ................................................................................... 15 

Table 3. Number of transverse cracks per section. ....................................................................... 19 

Table 4. Modulus of elasticity testing results for Winnemucca, NV (dry tested, x 106 psi)......... 20 

Table 5. Modulus of elasticity testing results for Winnemucca, NV (wet tested, x 106

 psi)........ 21 

Table 6. Summary of average modulus data for Winnemucca, NV. ............................................ 21 

Table 7. Compressive strength testing results for Winnemucca, NV. .......................................... 22 

Table 8. Relative humidity measurements for Winnemucca, NV (December 1995). .................. 22 

Table 9. Relative humidity measurements for Winnemucca, NV (October 1997)....................... 23 

Table 10. Relative humidity measurements for Winnemucca, NV (October 1998)..................... 23 

Table 11. Summary of petrographic examinations for cores from Winnemucca, NV. ................ 24 

Table 12. Summary of petrographic results (average 1997-1998) for cores from 

Winnemucca, NV.................................................................................................................. 25 

Table 13. Summary of Winnemucca, NV test sections. ............................................................... 26 

Table 14. Inspection dates and conditions. ................................................................................... 28 

Table 15. Condition of Delaware test pavement sections in 1998................................................ 30 

Table 16. Newark, DE, core modulus testing results (psi x 106, dry tested). ............................... 38 

Table 17. Newark, DE, core modulus testing results (psi x 106, wet tested)................................ 38 

Table 18. Newark, DE, compressive strength results (psi)........................................................... 38 

Table 19. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1994). ........................................................ 39 

Table 20. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1995). ........................................................ 39 

Table 21. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1996). ........................................................ 40 

Table 22. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1997). ........................................................ 40 

Table 23. Summary of petrographic findings for 1997 and 1998................................................. 41 

Table 24. Wheelpath ratings for all sections, Boron, CA. ............................................................ 56 

Table 25. Centerline ratings for all sections, Boron, CA.............................................................. 56 

Table 26. Modulus dry tested elastic modulus (psi x 106

), Boron, CA. ....................................... 57 

Table 27. Modulus wet tested elastic modulus (psi x 106), Boron, CA........................................ 57 

Table 28. Compressive strength test results (Boron, CA). ........................................................... 57 

Table 29. Relative humidity testing (1994). ................................................................................. 58 

Table 30. Relative humidity testing (1995). ................................................................................. 58 
x 

Table 31. Relative humidity testing (1996)................................................................................... 58 

Table 32. Relative humidity testing (1997)................................................................................... 59 

Table 33. Relative humidity testing (1998)................................................................................... 59 

Table 34. Summary of petrographic findings for 1997 and 1998, Boron, CA. ............................ 60 

Table 35. Test variables Lomas Boulevard, Albuquerque, NM. .................................................. 63 

Table 36. Visual inspection notes for October 1, 1998 (Albuquerque, NM)................................ 67 

Table 37. Summary of transverse joint spalling (1998)................................................................ 70 

Table 38. Elastic modulus test results dry condition (psi x 106, average of 2 cores) 

Albuquerque, NM. ................................................................................................................ 72 

Table 39. Elastic modulus test results wet condition (psi x 106

, average of 2 cores), 

Albuquerque, NM. ................................................................................................................ 73 

Table 40. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1994)................................................... 75 

Table 41. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1995)................................................... 75 

Table 42. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1996)................................................... 76 

Table 43. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1997)................................................... 76 

Table 44. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1998)................................................... 77 

Table 45. Summary of petrographic examination of cores for 1998 

(S = Shakespeare, G = Grevey)............................................................................................. 79 

Table 46. Summary of petrographic examination......................................................................... 80 

Table 47. General cross section information. ............................................................................... 82 

Table 48. Results of Delaware Duncan grouping. ........................................................................ 93 

Table 49. Statistical analysis of California LTE........................................................................... 99 

Table A1. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section. .............. 116 

Table A2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section L2...................... 117 

Table A3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section S2. ..................... 118 

Table A4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section M2..................... 119 

Table A5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section SA1. .................. 120 

Table A6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section LO1. .................. 121 

Table A7. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control 2. ....................... 122 

Table A8. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section S1. ..................... 123 

Table A9. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section L1...................... 124 

Table A10. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 1. ......... 125 

Table A11. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section M1................... 126 
xi 

Table B1. Transverse joint observations of Route 72, Newark, DE (1998) ............................... 127 

Table B2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 1............... 135 

Table B3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—test section 1..................... 136 

Table B4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—test section 2..................... 137 

Table B5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 2............... 138 

Table B6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 3............... 139 

Table B7. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 4............... 140 

Table B8. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—test section 3..................... 141 

Table B9. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—test section 4..................... 142 

Table B10. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 5............. 143 

Table C1. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—C1-boron........................ 153 

Table C2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—C2-boron........................ 154 

Table C3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—C3-boron........................ 155 

Table C4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—M1-boron....................... 156 

Table C5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—M2-boron....................... 157 

Table C6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—M3-boron....................... 158 

Table D1. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—1–1% LiOH. .................. 162 

Table D2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—2–0.5% LiOH. ............... 163 

Table D3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—3-Lomar......................... 164 

Table D4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—4-class F fly ash............. 165 

Table D5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—5-class F fly ash............. 166 

Table D6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—6-control. ....................... 167 

Table D7. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—7-blended C&F.............. 168 

Table D8. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—8-class F. ....................... 169 

Table D9. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—9-control. ....................... 170 

Table D10. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—10–1% LiOH. .............. 171 

Table D11. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—11-class C ash.............. 172 

1 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

In 1994, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) began monitoring test sections of various 

treatments designed to mitigate distress in portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements that 

contained aggregates known to be reactive with alkalies. The pavement treatments were part of 

the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). The test sections were located in California, 

Nevada, New Mexico, and Delaware. Three pavement sites had suffered some degree of distress 

due to alkali-silica reaction (ASR) prior to treatment, and one pavement was newly constructed 

with known reactive aggregates. 

The test sections of existing distressed pavement in California were treated with high molecular 

weight methacrylate (HMWM); the existing pavement sections in Nevada were also treated with 

HMWM, plus linseed oil, lithium hydroxide, and silane; and the existing pavement sections in 

Delaware were treated with lithium hydroxide. Various application rates were used at each test 

section. 

The test sections in New Mexico consisted of a newly constructed pavement that contained 

mineral and chemical admixtures as ASR inhibitors. These were: two rates of addition of lithium 

hydroxide, a 25 percent replacement of cement with combinations of Class C and Class F fly 

ashes, and a high-range, water-reducing (HRWR) admixture. 

The test sections in all four States were monitored annually for 5 years, from 1994 through 1998. 

The monitoring was done by Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) visual surveys, faulting 

measurements, relative humidity testing, petrographic examination, and compressive strength 

and elastic modulus testing. Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing also was performed. 

The FWD results for all four test sites are included in a section near the end of the report. 

The standard LTPP visual rating system sometimes had to be modified to accurately describe the 

differences between test sections. The LTPP criteria only rate the area of map cracking, not its 

severity. All of the older pavements (Nevada, California, and Delaware) already exhibited nearly 

100 percent map cracking at the time of the first survey. Each pavement was in moderate to 

advanced stages of ASR deterioration before surface treatment. Therefore, additional gradings to 

rate the severity of map cracking had to be developed for each site. This allowed differences 

between test sections to be described and quantified. 

3 

CHAPTER 2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM WINNEMUCCA, NV 

This test site is the pavement described in the SHRP C-343 report, “Eliminating or Minimizing 

Alkali-Silica Reactivity.” The test section consists of eleven 24.4-meter (m) groups of five-slab 

panels on the travel (number 2) lane of U.S. Interstate 80 (I-80) just east of Winnemucca, NV. 

The pavement was built in 1981. It consists of a plain, jointed, 20.3-centimeter (cm)-thick 

concrete slab over a 15.2-cm portland cement-treated base and a 7.6-cm gravel subbase. An 

asphalt concrete bondbreaker was used between the base and subbase. Non-doweled, skewed 

transverse joints are spaced at a repeating pattern of 3.66, 3.97, 5.49, and 5.80 m. Coarse 

aggregate was reportedly obtained from a commercial source in Winnemucca, and an American 

Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Type II low-alkali cement was used. An overall view of 

the section is shown in figure 1. A key to the sections is given in figure 2. 

Different surface treatment materials were applied to each five-slab-long test section. The 

materials tested were a high-molecular weight methacrylate resin (Sika Pronto 19TF), a polysiloxane resin sealer (Sikagard 70), a lithium hydroxide solution, a silane sealer (SilAct), and a 

linseed oil. There are also three five-slab-long untreated control sections. The treatments were 

applied in 1991 and 1992. Two different sets of test slabs were treated. One section, on the east 

end of the test site, includes the sections methacrylate 1 (M1), control 1 (C1), lithium 1 (L1), 

siloxane 1 (S1), and control 2 (C2). A second group of the same materials was applied on slabs 

on the west end of the test site; methacrylate (M2), siloxane (S2), lithium (L2), and control 3 

(C3). The pavement in the west end of the test area was less severely distressed than the sections 

in the east end. Within 1 year, two additional treatments were applied to the sections. One 

section used SilAct silane and was designated silane number 2 section 1 (SA1). The other 

material was a linseed oil and was designated linseed oil section 1 (LO1). Two additional 

applications of 10 percent LiOH solution were applied to the existing LiOH test areas. The 

following excerpt describes the application of the test materials (letter, Stark to Surdahl, October 

8, 1987): 

During the SHRP program in 1991, a search was made for an existing pavement 

where several candidate techniques for mitigating ASR might be investigated. Mr. 

Richard Moore, Materials and Testing Engineer of the State of Nevada, 

Department of Transportation (DOT), and the writer concluded that the abovementioned I-80 pavement exhibited the intended severity of cracking due to ASR 

to be the test pavement. It was preferred that ASR be only moderate so that traffic 

loading would not render such severe distress that remediation efforts would have 

no potential to arrest ASR-related distress. Based on SHRP laboratory work, 

LiOH was considered a satisfactory candidate. The intent was to spray the 

solution on the top of the wearing surface several times to allow penetration into 

the concrete, thereby arresting ASR. The second surface-applied treatment was a 

high-molecular weight methacrylate known as Sika Pronto 19 TF. It was a twocomponent, rapid curing, solvent-free product intended to penetrate and bond 

near-surface ASR and other cracks, thereby strengthening the pavement concrete 

against further distress. 
4 

Figure 1. Overall view of Winnemucca, NV test site. 

Figure 2. Winnemucca, NV test section layout. 

A third surface treatment was Sikagard 70. It was a blend of polysiloxane resins that was a 

colorless, nonfilm-forming, nonvapor barrier formulation to seal absorbent cementitious 

surfaces. The intent was to minimize penetration of atmospheric moisture into the concrete 

pavement, thereby reducing additional cracking from swelling of ASR gel reaction products. 

Figure 2 shows the location of the individual test sections. 

The first three surface treatments were applied on October 2, 1991. Prior to the initial 

application, all surfaces, including the nontreated control sections were sand- and air-blasted to 

remove adhered surface debris to facilitate penetration of the treatment. The Sikagard 70 

polysiloxane sealant was sprayed on at the recommended rate of (9.3 m2/3.8 liter (L) (100 square 
5 

feet per gallon (ft2/gal)) in a single application. Sika Pronto 19 Tack Free was squeegeed and 

broomed on the surface at a rate of 6.5 to 7.4 m2

/3.8 L (70 to 80 ft2/gal), then treated with fine 

(sandblasting) sand to minimize stickiness during setting that day. 

A 283.88 L quantity of a 10 percent LiOH solution was used for the two treatment areas. The 

LiOH was dissolved in a wheeled spray tank on October 1, 1991, and stored at the maintenance 

garage in Winnemucca. The following day, after surface cleaning, four individual applications of 

LiOH solution were sprayed on immediately following atmospheric surface drying during the 

late morning and middle afternoon. The rate of application was calculated at 5.6 m2/3.8 L (60 

ft2

/gal) for the 10 percent LiOH solution. 

On October 7, 1992, one year after the initial testing, three additional surface treatments were 

applied on the same region of Eastbound I-80 near Winnemucca. One application of linseed oil 

and one of SilAct silane each were applied to test sections as shown in figure 2. Also, two 

applications of the 10 percent LiOH solution were applied to the same test sections, at the same 

locations as before. These were applied at the rate of 1.7 m2

/3.8 L (18 ft2/gal). 

The Winnemucca pavement test section was inspected each fall for the 5 years of the study. 

Table 1 shows the inspection dates for this site. Annual tests included visual inspection and crack 

mapping, faulting measurements, relative humidity measurements, FWD readings (performed by 

the Nevada DOT), and core removal for wet and dry modulus testing and petrographic studies. 

The cores were taken by Nevada DOT personnel. 

Table 1. Inspection dates and conditions (Winnemucca, NV).

Year Inspection Dates Weather Conditions 

1994 October 18, 1994 Warm, 65–90 oF 

1995 December 12, 1995 Rainy, breezy, 50 oF 

1996 December 5, 1996 Rain, snow, 40 oF 

1997 October 9, 1997 Cold, became clear, 50–60 oF 

1998 October 28, 1998 Cold, showers, 40 oF 

oC = (oF-32)/1.8 

SUMMARY OF PAVEMENT CONDITION BY SECTION 

The condition of the pavement test section was determined by visual inspection. Notes were 

made as to the extent of map cracking, transverse cracking, etc. Generally, all sections had 

extensive map cracking, but some sections were worse than others. The condition of one section 

was compared to others. The results of the final visual inspection (1998) are given below. 

Photographs of typical sections are shown in appendix A. 

• Control 3 (C3)—This section is in slightly better condition than the other two control 

sections except that it has more transverse cracking. A considerable amount of high-severity 

spalling exists at the joints; however, a few areas within the transverse joints have not yet 

spalled. 

• Lithium 2 (L2)—This section is performing better than the lithium 1 section, but it was 

initially in better condition. Some areas along the transverse joints are not spalled, and the 
6 

amount of high-severity spalling is less. The map cracking in the wheelpath is mostly 

medium severity with some low severity, and the cracking in the centerline area is roughly 

half low and half medium severity. 

• Siloxane 2 (S2)—The transverse joint condition of this section is much better than that of S1, 

but it was initially in better condition. Some joints have no areas of high-severity spalling, 

and where joints have some high-severity spalling it is only for a short length. The map 

cracking in the wheelpath is mostly medium with some high and some low severity. The 

cracking in the centerline area is of medium severity. 

• Methacrylate (M2)—This section is performing better than most with respect to joint 

spalling. Transverse joints are rated as medium or high severity, but the actual length of highseverity spalling is small for each joint. The majority of the total joint length has a rating of 

low severity, but it is tabulated higher because of the rating criteria defined in the LTPP 

rating system. There are several large longitudinal cracks and a few transverse cracks. The 

amount of severe map cracking at the joints for this section is average compared to the other 

sections. The cracking in the wheelpath areas between joints is predominantly medium 

severity, and the centerline area is rated low severity. 

• Silane Number 2-1 (SA1)—The total length of joint spalling for this section is less than some 

sections but is still considerable. The severity of the spalling is less, with most being medium 

severity. There are some areas of severe map cracking in the wheelpaths at the joints, as well 

as several areas associated with large transverse cracks. The map cracking associated with 

the wheelpaths and centerline areas between joints is rated as medium severity. 

• Linseed Oil 1 (LO1)—This section has the same level of severity of joint spalling as control 

1. Almost all the joint length has some spalling, and most joints have some areas of highseverity spalling. The heavy map cracking in the wheelpath areas at the joints in this section 

is among the most severe of all sections, but not as bad as section S1. The map cracking in 

the wheelpaths between joints is of medium severity, and the cracking in the centerline areas 

is of low to medium severity. 

• Control 2 (C2)—This section is worse than control 1. Map cracking is well advanced, 

although discrete longitudinal cracking has become less pronounced. Almost all of the 

transverse joint length has spalling, and most has some high-severity spalling. The wheelpath 

map cracking is of high to medium severity, and the centerline cracking is of medium 

severity. 

• Siloxane 1 (S1)—This section has the most severe joint spalling of any section. High-severity 

spalling had occurred along 45 percent of the total transverse joint length. The map cracking 

in the wheelpath area is of medium to high severity, and in the centerline area it is of medium 

severity. The areas of heavy map cracking, where the wheelpaths cross the joints, are more 

severe for this section than the other sections. 

• Lithium 1 (L1)—This section is in the same condition as control 2. The entire transverse joint 

length has spalling, and all joints have some areas of high-severity spalling. The map 

cracking in the wheelpath area is of medium severity, while that in the centerline area is of 

low to medium severity. 
7 

• Control 1 (C1)—Some major longitudinal cracks exist, but they are becoming less noticeable 

due to an increase in the amount and severity of the map cracking. Almost all of the 

transverse joint length has spalling, and most joints have at least one area of high-severity 

spalling. Most of the wheelpath and centerline map cracking is of medium severity. 

• Methacrylate 1 (M1)—Joint spalling in this section is comparable to that in sections C1 and 

LO1. The entire length of transverse joints has some spalling. The spalling ranges from 

mostly medium and low severity for some joints, to other joints with half their length rated as 

high severity. The area associated with the severe map cracking in the wheelpaths at the 

joints is the second highest after section S1. The map cracking in the wheelpath between 

joints is rated from medium to high severity, and in the centerline area it is rated from low to 

medium severity. 

JOINT DISTRESS 

The joint ratings categorized the length of crack or joint at each severity level. This provided 

more information than the overall rating, based on the 10 percent rule defined in the LTPP rating 

system. Using the 10 percent rule rating method it is sometimes difficult to describe the actual 

visual difference between two sections. In the LTPP rating system, as long as a joint has at least 

10 percent high-severity spalling, it is labeled high. The joint distress ratings for this project and 

test site were further defined using the following rating scale. 

• Low—cracks are 3.175 millimeters (mm) wide or less, no adjacent parallel cracks, and no 

interconnection of parallel and perpendicular cracks. 

• Medium—cracks are >3.175 mm and <6.35 mm wide, or adjacent parallel cracks with 

interconnection of parallel and perpendicular cracks, with no loss of material. 

• High—cracks are >6.35 mm wide, or adjacent parallel cracks with interconnection of parallel 

and perpendicular cracks, with loss of material. 

Figure 3 shows an example of joint distress of high severity, and figure 4 shows an example of 

joint distress of medium severity. 

Figure 3. Joint distress of high severity (Winnemucca, NV). 
8 

Figure 4. Joint distress of medium severity (Winnemucca, NV). 

Figures 5 through 9 show the amount and severity of joint distress for each section over the 

4 years of the study. The figures are based on the 10 percent rule defined in the LTPP rating 

system. The amount and severity of joint distress has increased considerably during the study 

period. In 1994, all the joint distress was rated low except for small areas in sections SA1, C3, 

LO1, and M2 where the rating was medium. At that time, there were a large number of joints 

that had lengths without cracking or spalling. The deterioration increased to a point in 1998 

where almost the entire length of all transverse joints in each test section is distressed. The only 

section with any joint length rated low was section S2 (figure 9). The joints in several sections 

(C2, L1, C3, and S1) are rated high using the 10 percent rule. 

Figure 10 shows the actual measured joint length at each level of severity for all the sections in 

1998. If the true joint length at each severity is considered, all sections have some areas of lowseverity spalling. The length of high-severity joint spalling per section is less than the length of 

low- and medium-severity spalling. The section with the most high-severity joint distress is S1. 

The sections with the least amount of high joint distress are SA1 and S2, but these slabs were in 

better condition at the start of the study. Of the sections in the same group or beginning condition 

as S1, the section with least amount of high-severity spalling is section C1 (control). The next 

best is section L1. In the second group of sections, which were initially in better shape, the one 

with the most high-severity spalling is C3, followed by section LO1. 
9 

1994 Transverse Joint Spalling

0

5

10

15

20

25

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Length of Joint and Severity Level (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 5. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1994). 

1995 Transverse Joint Spalling

0

5

10

15

20

25

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Length of Joint and Severity Level (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 6. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1995). 
10 

1996 Transverse Joint Spalling

0

5

10

15

20

25

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Length of Joint and Severity Level (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 7. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1996). 

1997 Transverse Joint Spalling

0

5

10

15

20

25

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Length of Joint and Severity Level (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 8. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1997). 
11 

1998 Transverse Joint Spalling

0

5

10

15

20

25

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Length of Joint and Severity Level (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 9. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1998). 

True Joint Length at Given Severity

1998 

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Length (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 10. Actual joint length of each severity level for each section 

(Winnemucca, NV, 1998). 

SEVERE MAP CRACKING AT JOINTS 

Almost the entire test site was covered with map cracking when the study began in 1994. The 

cracking is more visible in the wheelpaths and shoulder areas (figure 11), but it does cover the 

entire pavement surface. Many of the cracks have efflorescence, as shown in figure 12. Because 

the entire test site is covered with fine map cracking, it is meaningless to compare sections on the 

basis of map cracking according to LTPP criteria. Therefore, only areas of severe map cracking 
12 

will be discussed and used to compare the sections. The severely map cracked areas typically 

appeared in the wheelpaths, especially at the joints. These areas represent locations where 

spalling or loss of concrete pieces has occurred or is likely to occur in the near future. Sometimes 

loss of base support and depressions occur. The number and area of interconnected “pockets” of 

severe cracking were noted during the visual survey and were recorded in category 8a in the 

SHRP LTPP recording sheets. 

Figure 11. Photograph showing widespread map 

cracking in shoulder area of Winnemucca test site. 

Figure 12. Close-up of map cracking with efflorescence 

(Winnemucca, NV). 
13 

The number of areas of severe map cracking in each section has increased each year over the 

4 years. However, sections C2, LO1, and M2 have remained nearly constant for the last 2 years. 

Figure 13 shows the number of areas of severe map cracking in each section for the years 1995 

through 1998. The sections with the most severe map cracking in 1998 are sections M1 and S1 

with 16 and 18 areas, respectively. The sections with the least number of areas are sections L2 

with eight areas and M2 and S2 with nine areas. 

Number of Areas Of Severe Map Cracking

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Number of Areas

1995

1996

1997

1998

Figure 13. Number of areas of severe map cracking in each section 

from 1995 through 1998 (Winnemucca, NV). 

Figure 14 shows the total area of severe map cracking for each section for the years 1995 and 

1998. The most distressed sections are the S1 and M1 sections, which have approximately 

16 and 15 square meters (m2

) of severe cracking, respectively. These sections also had the most 

distress at the start of the study. They are followed by section LO1 with approximately 11 m2 and 

section C2 with about 9 m2

. These sections are all at the eastern end of the test site, which had 

the more severe cracking at the start of the test. sections L1 and C1 have the least area affected of 

the sections in the eastern end. Of the sections in the western end of the site, section M2, with 

over 7 m2

 of severe map cracked area, is the worst. The best performing section in this group is 

section L2, with 4 m2

. 

Overall, the only treatment that shows minor improvement in severe map cracking over the 

control sections is the LiOH (sections L1 and L2). In 1998, section L2 had less area affected than 

control 3 in the western end of the site. Section L1 in the eastern end had less area affected than 

control 2 and about the same amount as control 1. In general, all the test sections are performing 

similar to or worse than the control sections. 
14 

Map Cracking Summary 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Total Area (m2)

12/12/1995

12/5/1996

10/9/1997

10/28/98

Figure 14. Total area of severe map cracking for each section 

for 1995 through 1998 (Winnemucca, NV). 

WHEELPATH AND CENTERLINE RATING 

The severity of the wheelpath and centerline map cracking at the center of the slabs, away from 

the transverse joints, was rated as low, medium, or high, as follows: 

• Low—cracking is primarily longitudinal with little or no interconnection of longitudinal 

cracks and very few transverse interconnected cracks. 

• Medium—cracking is both longitudinal and transverse with interconnection of cracks, easily 

defined longitudinal cracks exist and are included in the category “3” damage ratings of the 

SHRP LTPP ratings. 

• High—heavy transverse and longitudinal cracking occurs with interconnections, pockets of 

heavy damage exist with small pieces, and some pieces may be spalled. 

The wheelpath and centerline ratings for all sections for 1995 and 1998 are given in table 2. In 

general, the map cracking areas have increased in severity from 1995 to 1998. In 1995, no 

sections of wheelpath or centerline areas were rated high severity. The wheelpath areas were 

approximately 50 percent low and 50 percent medium severity in 1995, but in 1998 they were 

mostly of medium severity with some low- and occasional high-severity ratings. 
15 

Table 2. Wheelpath and centerline ratings for 1995 and 1998; 

number of slabs with each rating (Winnemucca, NV).

Section C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1 

WP L 2 3 3 4 3 1 2 0 0 0 5 

 M 3 2 2 1 2 4 3 5 5 5 0 

1995 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

WP L 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 M 4 4 2 4 5 5 3 3 5 4 3 

1998 H 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 

CL L 4 5 5 5 3 3 5 3 4 4 5 

 M 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 

1995 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CL L 1 3 0 5 0 1 0 0 2 1 4 

 M 4 2 5 0 5 4 5 5 3 4 1 

1998 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

In 1995, the centerline areas were mostly of low severity with some medium-severity areas, but 

in 1998, the centerlines are mostly of medium severity with some low-severity areas. In 1998, 

there were no areas of high-severity cracking in the centerline areas. 

In 1998, sections M1, C2, and S1 had the highest levels of distress in the wheelpaths with three 

panels rated medium severity and two panels rated high severity. Section M2 and L2 had the 

lowest wheelpath distress in 1998 with one panel rated low severity and four panels rated 

medium severity. Sections L2, LO1, and L1 had moderately low relative distress. Sections S2, 

SA1, C2, and S1 all had the highest level of centerline distress in 1998 with all five panels rated 

medium severity. Section M2 had the lowest distress in the centerline area with all five panels 

rated low severity. 

TRANSVERSE CRACKING 

All of the test sections have several transverse cracks, such as that shown in figure 15. Some 

extend full width while others only reach partway across the lane. Some other transverse cracks, 

such as the one in figure 16, intersect with longitudinal cracks. A comparison of the transverse 

cracking for each year is shown in figures 17 through 21. Table 3 indicates the number of 

transverse cracks in each section for all years of the study. A transverse crack consists of a single 

distinct crack or a single crack with only a few branches. The number of transverse cracks in a 

section can decrease if the crack becomes part of an area of severe map cracking. 
16 

Figure 15. Full-width transverse cracking in test section 

(Winnemucca, NV). 

Figure 16. Transverse cracking with intersecting 

longitudinal crack (Winnemucca, NV). 
17 

1994 Transverse Cracking

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Length of Transverse Cracking, and Severity (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 17. Amount and severity of transverse cracking 

for all sections (Winnemucca, NV, 1994). 

1995 Transverse Cracking

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Length of Transverse Cracking, and Severity (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 18. Amount and severity of transverse cracking 

for all sections (Winnemucca, NV, 1995). 
18 

1996 Transverse Cracking

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Length of Transverse Cracking, and Severity (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 19. Amount and severity of transverse cracking 

for all sections (Winnemucca, NV, 1996). 

1997 Transverse Cracking

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Length of Transverse Cracking, and Severity (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 20. Amount and severity of transverse cracking 

for all sections (Winnemucca, NV, 1997). 
19 

1998 Transverse Cracking

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

Section

Length of Transverse Cracking, and Severity 

(m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 21. Amount and severity of transverse cracking 

for all sections (Winnemucca, NV, 1998). 

Table 3. Number of transverse cracks per section.

Year Section ID 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

C3 11 10 11 11 11 

L2 3 2 2 3 3 

S2 3 2 2 2 2 

M2 5 4 4 5 5 

SA1 8 8 8 8 8 

LO-1 2 3 3 3 3 

C2 3 2 2 2 2 

S1 7 7 8 8 4 

L1 7 7 7 7 8 

C1 7 6 6 6 6 

M1 4 4 4 4 5 

Section C3 (control) has the most cracks at 11, and the greatest length of high-severity cracking. 

However, the section with the lowest total number and length of transverse cracking is section 

C2 (control). Section S2 also has the fewest number of cracks, but all cracks are high severity. 

The section with the lowest overall severity of transverse cracking is section M1. Transverse 

cracking does not appear to be a good indicator of relative performance of these ASR test 

sections. 

MODULUS AND STRENGTH TESTING 

Core samples were removed from each test section and tested for modulus of elasticity in both 

dry and wet conditions. In the field, after some cores came out in several pieces, an additional 

core had to be taken. The dry-tested and wet-tested moduli of elasticity for the test sections over 
20 

the 4-year test duration are shown in tables 4 and 5. The cores taken in 1994 were only tested in 

the dry condition. A summary of the average data is shown in table 6. 

There is no obvious trend from 1994 to 1998. The measured modulus fluctuated up and down 

over the test period. There is, however, a trend when the test sections from different groups are 

studied. For all sections in 1998, the average dry modulus of elasticity is 13.92 x 106 kilopascals 

(kPa) (2.02 x 106 pounds per square inch (psi)). 

The average for the group of test sections at the eastern end that were originally in worse 

condition (C1, C2, L1, M1, and S1) is 11.78 x 106

 kPa (1.71 x 106 psi) while the sections on the 

western end (C3, L2, M2, and S2) have an average modulus of 15.71 x 106 kPa (2.28 x 106

 psi). 

For the wet-tested modulus, shown in tables 5 and 6, the trend is the same. The east group of 

sections has an average modulus of elasticity of 10.82 x 106

 kPa (1.57 x 106 psi) compared to 

14.33 x 106

 kPa (2.08 x 106 psi) for the west group. 

The same trend is also found in the compressive strength results listed in table 7. All 

compressive strength tests were conducted on dry cores. No compressive strength tests were 

conducted on cores from 1994 or 1995 since compressive strength was not in the original scope 

of work. In 1998, the average strength of the sections in the east group is 32,564 kPa (4,723 psi) 

compared to 37,101 kPa (5,381 psi) for the sections in the west group. In general, it appears the 

concrete in the western end of the site was in better condition at the beginning of the study and 

suffered a lesser amount of distress during the study. There is no trend to indicate which surface 

treatment is performing better than the others. 

Table 4. Modulus of elasticity testing results for Winnemucca, NV 

(dry tested, x 106 psi).

Year Section ID 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

C3 2.28 2.77 2.73 2.60 1.97 

L2 3.41 2.31 3.49 4.06 2.74 

S2 1.74 1.84 3.25 2.34 1.88 

M2 2.04 1.59 1.96 2.02 2.35 

SA1 1.67 2.69 1.75 2.34 2.28 

LO1 2.31 1.46 1.19 2.49 2.47 

C2 – 1.46 1.99 2.83 1.20 

S1 1.67 1.11 1.93 1.49 1.97 

L1 2.17 1.62 – 1.72 1.53 

C1 2.71 2.06 – 1.72 2.45 

M1 0.97 1.71 – 1.19 1.40 

Average 2.10 1.87 2.29 2.25 2.02 

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 
21 

Table 5. Modulus of elasticity testing results for Winnemucca, NV 

(wet tested, x 106

 psi). 

Year Section ID 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

C3 – 3.08 2.23 2.39 2.20 

L2 – 2.59 3.51 3.90 2.51 

S2 – 1.96 3.00 2.72 1.84 

M2 – 1.70 1.72 1.64 2.08 

SA1 – 2.86 1.84 2.22 2.12 

LO1 1.52 1.28 2.37 1.70 

C2 – 1.56 1.82 3.60 1.64 

S1 – 1.04 1.93 1.23 1.03 

L1 – 1.62 – 1.80 1.04 

C1 – 2.12 – 1.25 2.46 

M1 – 1.81 – 1.24 1.66 

Average – 1.99 2.17 2.21 1.84 

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 

Table 6. Summary of average modulus data for Winnemucca, NV.

Year Average 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

E-dry 2.09 1.87 2.29 2.25 2.02 

E-dry east 1.88 1.59 1.96 1.79 1.71 

E-dry west 2.24 2.11 2.40 2.64 2.28 

E-wet – 1.99 2.17 2.21 1.84 

E-wet east – 1.63 1.88 1.82 1.57 

E-wet west – 2.29 2.26 2.54 2.08 

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 
22 

Table 7. Compressive strength testing results 

for Winnemucca, NV.

Year Section 1996 1997 1998 

C3 6951 4968 4831 

L2 6230 5028 5811 

S2 6210 5511 4837 

M2 5968 5132 5875 

SA1 6785 5244 5633 

LO1 5444 5573 5297 

C2 5395 5141 4305 

S1 6401 4250 4279 

L1 – 4494 4749 

C1 – 5113 5107 

M1 4510 4920 5175 

Average 6173 5034 5082 

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 

RELATIVE HUMIDITY MEASUREMENTS 

Powdered samples of the concrete pavement were taken from various locations in 1995, 1997, 

and 1998. The samples were taken at four different depths, as shown in tables 8, 9, and 10. A 

rotary hammer drill with a 2.858-cm (1.125-inch) diameter drill bit was used to drill the concrete. 

The powder samples were sealed in glass containers. The humidity within the containers was 

measured using a resistance humidity probe. 

Table 8. Relative humidity measurements for 

Winnemucca, NV (December 1995).

Depth (inches) Section 0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

C3 47 76 86 91 

L2 38 60 83 89 

S2 52 86 89 98 

M2 40 68 89 91 

SA1 44 73 92 86 

LO1 38 61 85 81 

C2 96 98 90 100 

S1 44 96 99 97 

L1 56 74 88 95 

C1 40 58 86 91 

M1 59 80 69 93 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 
23 

Table 9. Relative humidity measurements for 

Winnemucca, NV (October 1997).

Depth (inches) Section 0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

C3 78 95 96 97 

L2 87 94 99 99 

S2 39 62 96 97 

M2 88 97 92 99 

SA1 71 88 96 93 

LO1 100 100 100 100 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

Table 10. Relative humidity measurements for 

Winnemucca, NV (October 1998).

Depth (inches) Section 0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

C3 100 100 100 100 

L2 100 100 100 100 

S2 100 100 100 100 

M2 100 100 100 100 

SA1 100 100 100 100 

LO1 100 100 100 100 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

Intermittent heavy rain occurred during the 1998 inspection. Light rain occurred after sampling 

in 1995. For all samples taken deeper than 10.2 cm (4.016 inch) below the surface, the relative 

humidity is typically more than 80 percent. This would indicate that even though the test site is 

in a dry climate, there is enough moisture migrating up from the soil underneath the pavement to 

sustain the ASR. 

PETROGRAPHIC STUDIES 

Petrographic examinations were made of at least one core from each test section at selected 

years. The core was cut into the largest possible rectangular prism, and two faces of the prism 

were lapped. Parallel sections were marked on each lapped face to delineate each traverse and 

ensure that the entire lapped surface was examined. Evidence of an ASR in the form of gel, 

cracks characteristic of ASR, and reacted particles were then counted. Cracks were counted more 

than once if they were encountered in more than one traverse. 

The relative number of reacted coarse and fine aggregate particles should be regarded as 

approximate, since alkali-silica gel is highly mobile and may have migrated away from the 

originating particle. For example, gel may be present on the surface of a potentially reactive 

coarse aggregate particle that shows no other signs of distress. This particle would be counted as 

a reacted coarse aggregate particle although it is entirely possible the gel originated from an 

adjacent fine aggregate particle. 
24 

The petrographic reports are in appendix A. Table 11 gives a summary of the findings for the 

years 1996, 1997, and 1998. Generally, there is a significant increase in the number of cracks, 

particles that have reacted, and gel locations for all treatment sections in 1997 and 1998. Table 

12 shows a summary and ranking of each section relative to the average number of cracks, 

reacted particles, and gel spots for 1997 and 1998. 

Table 11. Summary of petrographic examinations for cores from Winnemucca, NV.

Cracks Reacted particles Gel Core ID Year Micro Large Fine Coarse Locations 

C1 

1996 

1997 

1998 

– 

61 

40 

– 

0 

0 

– 

22 

115 

0 

8 

17 

– 

54 

129 

C2 

1996 

1997 

1998 

54 

34 

139 

0 

0 

3 

11 

42 

129 

0 

9 

35 

10 

58 

104 

C3 

1996 

1997 

1998 

38 

11 

72 

0 

0 

1 

20 

27 

134 

0 

3 

16 

23 

50 

84 

M1 

1996 

1997 

1998 

– 

185 

196 

– 

0 

7 

– 

42 

102 

– 

13 

47 

– 

81 

105 

M2 

1996 

1997 

1998 

22 

48 

75 

0 

0 

0 

8 

27 

65 

0 

5 

35 

22 

75 

73 

SA1 

1996 

1997 

1998 

7 

77 

114 

0 

0 

1 

1 

64 

156 

0 

10 

43 

10 

41 

78 

S1 

1996 

1997 

1998 

70 

97 

113 

0 

0 

2 

12 

23 

173 

0 

13 

58 

31 

85 

90 

S2 

1996 

1997 

1998 

15 

29 

153 

0 

0 

3 

7 

53 

102 

0 

14 

45 

8 

40 

116 

L1 

1996 

1997 

1998 

45 

65 

121 

0 

0 

1 

4 

21 

81 

0 

1 

31 

11 

39 

69 

L2 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1 

20 

23 

0 

0 

0 

4 

22 

126 

0 

0 

16 

20 

32 

88 

LO-1 

1996 

1997 

1998 

19 

73 

46 

0 

0 

0 

7 

32 

69 

0 

5 

27 

40 

62 

84 
25 

Table 12. Summary of petrographic results (average 1997-1998) 

for cores from Winnemucca, NV.

Section Cracks Reacted Particles Gel Total 

C3 84 180 134 398 

L2 43 164 120 327 

S2 185 214 156 555 

M2 123 132 148 403 

SA1 192 273 119 584 

LO-1 119 133 146 398 

C2 176 215 162 553 

S1 212 267 175 654 

L1 187 134 108 429 

C1 101 162 183 446 

M1 388 204 186 778 

SUMMARY FOR WINNEMUCCA, NV TEST SITE 

Table 13 summarizes selected data for the Winnemucca, NV test site. Overall, little difference 

was seen in the performance of the test sections. None of the treatments stopped the progression 

of ASR distress. The humidity in the pavement was sufficient to allow continued ASR in each 

section. Review of all data indicates that sections L2 and M2 may have improved the durability 

slightly over the controls. None of treatments (LO1, S1, L1, M1) applied to the eastern pavement 

section, which started in the worst condition, improved performance. This indicates that the 

timing of the treatment may be important and treatment should be performed before the 

pavement is seriously distressed. 
26 

Table 13. Summary of Winnemucca, NV test sections.

Percent Joint 

Distress 

1998 

Average 

Modulus 

(10-6 psi) 

1997-1998

Average 

Compressive 

Strength 

(psi) 

1997-1998 

Average 

Relative 

Humidity 

(%) 

1995-1997 

Section 

ID 

Medium High 

Severe Map 

Cracking 

(m2) 

1998 

Wheelpath 

Ratings 

1998-High 

Centerline 

Ratings 

1998-Med. 

Dry Wet Dry 0.75 in. 2.25 

C3 24 23 6 1 4 2.29 2.30 4900 75 L2 32 13 4 0 2 3.40 3.21 5420 75 S2 24 10 6 2 5 2.11 2.28 5174 64 M2 34 14 7 0 0 2.19 1.86 5504 76 SA1 49 7 7 0 5 2.31 2.17 5439 72 LO1 49 19 11 0 4 2.48 2.04 5435 79 C2 44 26 9 2 5 2.02 2.62 4723 96 S1 28 46 16 2 5 1.73 1.13 4265 44 L1 37 18 6 0 3 1.63 1.42 4622 56 C1 46 11 6 1 4 2.09 1.86 5110 40 M1 36 35 15 2 1 1.30 1.45 5048 59 1 psi = 6.89 kPa 1 m = 3.281 ft
27 

CHAPTER 3. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM NEWARK, DE 

The test section consists of nine 12.2-m-long slabs on the northbound shoulder of Route 72 in 

Newark, DE. There are five control sections with no treatment and four test sections that had 

lithium hydroxide applied as a surface treatment to mitigate ASR damage. The test site starts 

with the second full slab past the entrance to the University of Delaware Agricultural 

Experimentation Station. The sections are ordered as follows: control 1, test 1, test 2, control 2, 

control 3, control 4, test 3, test 4, control 5. The test location includes a gradual right-hand turn 

and sag vertical curve, with section control 3 containing drains at the low point. Sections control 

1, test 1, test 2, control 2, and control 3 are sloped more steeply downward toward the drains than 

the other sections. Because of the grade changes and the location of the test area, sections control 

1, 2, and 3 and test sections 1 and 2 could be expected to carry significantly more water during 

storms than test sections 3 and 4 and control sections 4 and 5. An overall view of the section 

is shown in figure 22. 

(a) (site looking north) (b) (site looking south) 

Figure 22. North and south views of the Newark, DE site. 

For the Newark test site, visual surveys for map cracking and joint spalling, relative humidity 

sampling, and drilling of cores for modulus and strength were performed for each of the 5 years 

of study. FWD tests were performed, and the results are presented in a section near the end of 

this report. Table 14 lists when the site inspections were performed and the weather conditions. 
28 

Table 14. Inspection dates and conditions. 

Inspection Date Weather 

November 29, 1994 Cool, sunny 

November 28, 1995 Cloudy, 50–60 °F 

November 21, 1996 Cold, overcast, 35–45 oF 

December 9, 1997 Cold, Sunny 

October 22, 1998 Cool, breezy, sunny, 40–45 oF, pavement wet 

oC = (oF-32)/1.8 

Since the FHWA LTPP structurally oriented rating system did not adequately describe the 

pavement condition, the LTPP sheets were filled out using the following conventions: 

1. The longitudinal cracking was recorded as a map-cracked area. This was necessary because 

no length could be assigned to the extensive cracking. Only one area exhibited some minor 

interconnection with transverse cracks, so all areas were considered to be affected at 

equal severity. 

2. Transverse joints separating test sections were graded as part of the next section, that is, the 

northernmost section. 

3. The transverse joint damage was listed as the length of joint intersected by the longitudinal 

cracking. Ratings were as given in the LTPP handbook. 

The cracking was principally longitudinal with only minor transverse cracks that sometimes 

interconnected the longitudinal cracks. The cracking appears to be related to ASR damage, but it 

has not manifested itself in the typical pattern or map cracking. The longitudinal cracking pattern 

may be related to the restraint conditions of the shoulder. Expansion of the shoulder concrete 

may be easier toward the soil side of the pavement than against more rigid pavement. Lower 

restraint allows cracking to occur easier in the longitudinal direction. This type of cracking is 

commonly seen in prestressed beams with ASR, where cracking is seen only parallel to the 

prestressing strand. 

SUMMARY OF PAVEMENT SECTION CONDITION 

Extensive longitudinal cracking, with cracks more closely spaced near the longitudinal joint 

with the adjacent travel lane, was noted in all sections. The longitudinal cracks were usually 

short with no inter-connecting transverse cracks. Figures 23 and 24 show photographs of 

typical longitudinal cracking. Figure 24 also shows some of the typical asphalt patching along 

the longitudinal joint between the shoulder and travel lanes. The only areas within the sections 

not covered with longitudinal cracking are along the curb side. Table 15 gives a brief 

description of the condition of each section in 1998. The table follows the position of the test 

sections from the south to the north. 
29 

Figure 23. Typical longitudinal cracking (Newark, DE). 

Figure 24. Typical longitudinal cracking and example of asphalt patching 

along joint between shoulder and travel lane (Newark, DE). 
30 

Table 15. Condition of Delaware test pavement sections in 1998. 

Section Description 

Control 1 

Longitudinal cracking (map cracking) covers the area from 1.22 to 3.36 m 

from the edge of pavement (EP). Cracks are typically spaced 10.2 cm apart. 

Cracking extends full width at ends of section. Most of cracks are stained. One 

full width transverse crack and one spall were observed on the south end of the 

section. This section has almost as severe cracking as TS2. 

Test section 1 

Longitudinal cracking (map cracking) covers the area from 1.07 to 3.36 m 

from EP, with a typical 10.2-cm spacing. Cracking extends the full width of 

the slabs at the ends of section. More severe map cracking exists at the south 

end of the section. Cracking is obvious (medium) due to the staining. One 

1.22-m-long transverse crack exists at the 3.97-m mark of section. Slightly less 

severe cracking than TS2. 

Test section 2 

Longitudinal cracking (map cracking) covers area from 1.22 to 3.36 m from 

the EP, with 10.2- to 12.7-cm spacing in center area of section and 7.6- to 

10.2-cm spacing at the south end. Cracking extends full width at ends of 

section especially at south end. All cracking is medium with heavy stains. This 

section has the most severe cracking and staining. 

Control 2 

Longitudinal cracking (map cracking) covers the area from 1.22 to 3.36 m 

from the EP, with 10.2-cm spacing at the south end and 15.2- to 25.4-cm 

spacing in the center area of slab. Staining of cracks is noticeable, especially 

near the joints. Fine cracking exists over the area 0.92 to 1.83 m from the EP. 

Cracking and staining are not as severe as TS2, TS1, or C1. 

Control 3 

Fine longitudinal cracking (map cracking) covers the area from 1.22 to 3.36 m 

from the EP, with staining along lane edge and ends of the section. Some 

larger longitudinal cracks are present in center area of the section. One 

transverse crack is present from the corner of drain to the edge of the lane. 

Cracking is less frequent than on C4. 

Control 4 

Short fine cracks are present from 0.61 to 3.36 m from EP, spaced about 8 to 

11 inches apart. No cracks were noted within 0.61 m of the curb. Some larger 

longitudinal cracks (medium) are present. Cracking is slightly less severe than 

first three control sections. 

Test section 3 

Fine short cracks are present over the entire area 0.61 to 3.36 m from EP. No 

cracks are present within 0.61 m of the curb. Cracks extend farther into the 

section near the south end. This section has the least severe cracking of the test 

sections. 

Test section 4 

Very fine cracks (2-inch spacing) cover an area from 0.61 to 3.36 m from the 

EP. From 2.75 to 3.36 m, cracks are more obvious and have staining but are 

spaced farther apart. Several larger new cracks are present at approximately 

0.92 m from the EP. This section has somewhat more severe cracking than 

section TS3. 

Control 5 

Very fine cracks (finer than TS4) extend from 0.61 to 3.36 m from EP, and are 

typically spaced 7.6 cm apart. Cracks from 0.61 to 0.92 m have staining. 

Cracking is slightly more severe than section TS4. 
31 

It appears the nine sections can be divided into two groups of almost equal severity of cracking. 

The group with the most severe cracking and staining include control sections 1, 2, and 3 and test 

sections 1 and 2. These are also the first five sections of the site and carry the most runoff water. 

The other group includes control section 4 and 5, and test sections 3 and 4. 

The area of each slab affected by map cracking has increased over the 4 years of the study. 

Figure 25 shows a graph of the area affected in each section over the 4 years of the study. Two 

levels of distress are apparent. One group, which consists of control 1, test section 1, test section 

2, and control 3, has approximately the same area affected by map cracking. The area 

has gradually been increasing over the 5 years. The other group consists of control 2, test 

section 3, test section 4, control 4, and control 5. The area of these sections affected increased 

gradually over the first 4 years but at a lower level than the other group. However, the 

area affected increased sharply in the last year of the study and was at the same level as the other 

group. This can also be seen in figure 26, which shows the area affected by map cracking as a 

percentage of the total section area. All sections had more than 60 percent of their area affected 

by map cracking in 1998. There is no value for control 4 in 1998. Test section 3, test section 4, 

and control 5 have the most area affected, at over 80 percent, but these areas had the smallest 

affected areas the year before. All the map cracking was of low severity. 

Map Cracking of Sections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

11/29/1994 11/28/1995 11/21/1996 12/9/1997 10/22/1998

Date

Area Affected (m2

)

Control 1

Test 1

Test 2

Control 2

Control 3

Control 4

Test 3

Test 4

Control 5

Figure 25. Area of each slab affected by map cracking 

over the 5 years of the study (Newark, DE). 
32 

Map Cracking Summary

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Control 1 Test 1 Test 2 Control 2 Control 3 Control 4 Test 3 Test 4 Control 5

Section

Map Cracked Area (percent of total)

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Figure 26. Area of each slab affected by map cracking expressed 

as a percentage of the total section area (Newark, DE). 

JOINT DISTRESS AND TRAVEL LANE OBSERVATIONS 

Spalling of transverse joints has increased over the 4 years of the study. A description of the 

joint observations in the shoulder lane and the travel lane from 1998 is given in appendix B 

(table B-1). The joints were rated both by SHRP guidelines and by noting how many longitudinal 

cracks intersected the joint. The travel lane was observed from the shoulder lane because of the 

difficulty in setting up a lane closure. A marked increase in damage in the travel lane was noted. 

Many of the joints had been patched in the wheelpath areas with large asphaltic concrete patches. 

Figure 27 shows a typical asphalt concrete patch along a transverse joint in the travel lane. Also, 

extensive patching was noted on the traffic side of the longitudinal joint along test section 2. 

Figure 28 shows a patch in the center of the travel lane. Visual observations of the joints along 

the pavement were made of both the travel and passing lanes. 
33 

Figure 27. Asphalt concrete patching along 

transverse joint in travel lane (Newark, DE).

Figure 28. Asphalt patch in center of section 

in travel lane (Newark, DE). 

Figures 29 through 33 show the amount and severity of joint spalling over the 5 years of the 

study. In 1994, the control 3, control 4, control 5, and test section 2 had joint spalling. At this 

time the spalling was all low severity. In 1998, all sections except test section 4 have transverse 

joint spalling. All sections have low-severity spalling except control 4 and control 5, which have 

spalling of medium severity. Test sections 3 and 4 are performing much better than test sections 

1 and 2 with respect to transverse joint spalling. This likely is due to the different exposure 

conditions previously discussed. 
34 

Spalling of Transverse Joints 1994

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Control 1 Test 1 Test 2 Control 2 Control 3 Control 4 Test 3 Test 4 Control 5

Length of Joint and Severity Level (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 29. Length and severity of joint distress 

for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1994). 

Spalling of Transverse Joints 1995 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Control 1 Test 1 Test 2 Control 2 Control 3 Control 4 Test 3 Test 4 Control 5

Length of Joint and Severity Level (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 30. Length and severity of joint distress 

for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1995). 
35 

Spalling of Transverse Joints 1996

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Control 1 Test 1 Test 2 Control 2 Control 3 Control 4 Test 3 Test 4 Control 5

Length of Joint and Severity Level (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 31. Length and severity of joint distress 

for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1996). 

Spalling of Transverse Joints 1997

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Control 1 Test 1 Test 2 Control 2 Control 3 Control 4 Test 3 Test 4 Control 5

Length of Joint and Severity Level (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 32. Length and severity of joint distress 

for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1997). 
36 

Spalling of Transverse Joints 1998

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Control 1 Test 1 Test 2 Control 2 Control 3 Control 4 Test 3 Test 4 Control 5

Section

Length of Joint and Severity Level (m)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 33. Length and severity of joint distress 

for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1998). 

TRANSVERSE CRACKING 

A summary of the transverse cracking in each section over the 5 years is shown in figure 34. 

The only sections with transverse cracking are control 1, control 3, control 4, and test section 3. 

The cracking in the three control sections had occurred before the first year of the study and did 

not increase in length or severity during the next 4 years of the study. The cracking in test section 

3 had also occurred before the first year of the study but increased in length over the 4 years. 

There was no increase in severity, and all severity ratings are low. Generally, the transverse 

cracking of the Delaware test sections were there before the study began and do not appear to be 

getting more severe. 
37 

Transverse Cracking Summary

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Control 1 Test 1 Test 2 Control 2 Control 3 Control 4 Test 3 Test 4 Control 5

Section

Length of Transverse Cracking

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

(Note: Length of Transverse Cracking (y-axis) is in meters.) 

Figure 34. Summary of transverse cracking in each 

section for the five inspections (Newark, DE). 

MODULUS AND STRENGTH TESTING 

Each year cores were taken for modulus and strength testing. Subsequent cores were taken 0.61 

m and 0.92 m from the previous year’s cores along the same travel line on the downstream or 

“leave” side of the panel. The cores were labeled with the test panel designation and the letters 

“A” and “B,” with A being the upstream (approach) core. The state crew removed the cores 

using a trailer-mounted coring machine. Selected cores were tested to determine the compressive 

strength and elastic modulus of the concrete in both wet and dry conditions. 

A single core from each section was tested for wet and dry modulus and compressive strength 

testing. The cores were tested in a dry as-received condition, then soaked in lime saturated water 

for 2 weeks and retested. After the wet modulus tests were performed, the cores were allowed to 

dry for approximately 1 week, then tested to determine their compressive strength. The results of 

the dry modulus testing are shown in table 16, and results of the wet modulus testing are shown 

in table 17. In 1994 the cores were only tested for modulus in the dry condition. Wet modulus 

testing and compressive strength testing was not performed. In 1995, wet and dry modulus 

testing was performed but compressive strength testing was not since strength testing was not 

part of the original work plan. 
38 

Table 16. Newark, DE, core modulus testing results (psi x 106

, dry tested).

Year Section 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Control 1 2.05 2.04 1.62 2.12 1.50 

Test 1 1.77 1.76 0.96 2.34 Failed

Test 2 1.50 1.71 1.00 1.36 1.20

Test 3 1.87 2.08 1.79 2.33 1.66

Test 4 1.95 2.46 2.17 2.43 1.98

Control 5 2.04 2.09 1.87 2.19 1.71

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 

Table 17. Newark, DE, core modulus testing results (psi x 106

, wet tested). 

Section 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Control 1 – 1.80 1.69 1.70 1.40

Test 1 – 1.77 1.31 1.88 –

Test 2 – 1.67 1.00 1.19 1.38

Test 3 – 2.01 1.68 1.97 1.86

Test 4 – 2.27 1.96 2.17 2.20

Control 5 – 1.81 1.76 1.77 2.10

1 kPa = 6.89 psi 

The measured modulus values for the cores were generally lower for 1998 than those in previous 

years, especially for the dry-tested moduli. The core from test section 1 failed during the preload, so there is no value for 1998. The results from 1997 show an increase in modulus over 

the previous years. The results from 1998 decreased, with a few exceptions, to less than the 

1996 values. This follows the increase in distress noted in the sections. 

The compressive strength results shown in table 18 do not indicate any trend except that test 

section 4 and control 5 have considerably higher compressive strengths than the other sections. 

These sections are at the far north end of the test area. The strength results are generally lower in 

1998 than in 1996 but the concrete still has considerable compressive strength. 

Table 18. Newark, DE, compressive strength results (psi). 

Section 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Control 1 – – 5320 5171 4325 

Test 1 – – 5837 4947 –

Test 2 – – 4799 4014 4520

Test 3 – – 4947 3989 4107

Test 4 – – 6058 5849 5720

Control 5 – – 5891 5565 5533 

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 
39 

RELATIVE HUMIDITY MEASUREMENTS 

After the visual surveys were completed and as the cores were being taken, six relative humidity 

locations were sampled, one each in sections control 1, test 1, test 2, test 3, test 4, and control 5. 

Section control 2, control 3, and control 4 were not sampled. The relative humidity samples 

were taken at various depths. The sample depths and results of the relative humidity testing are 

shown in tables 19 through 22. The relative humidity measurements were not made in 1998 due 

to very wet pavement conditions. 

Table 19. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1994). 

Relative Humidity, Percent 

Section (at given depth interval) (inches) 

0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 5.5–6 

Control 1 70 81 90 95 

Test section 1 72 95 97 98 

Test section 2 85 93 97 101 

Test section 3 84 97 100 100 

Test section 4 – – – – 

Control 5 71 93 92 94 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

Table 20. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1995). 

Relative Humidity, Percent 

Section (at given depth interval) (inches) 

0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 5.5–6 

Control 1 67 84 93 95 

Test section 1 75 87 96 99 

Test section 2 87 92 97 100 

Test section 3 83 92 96 94 

Test section 4 77 90 92 98 

Control 5 69 85 94 96 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 
40 

Table 21. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1996). 

Relative Humidity, Percent 

Section (at given depth interval) (inches) 

0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 5.5–6 

Control 1 69 95 96 87 

Test section 1 71 82 94 93 

Test section 2 52 84 48 83 

Test section 3 54 83 91 80 

Test section 4 57 85 94 83 

Control 5 80 87 74 83 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

Table 22. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1997). 

Relative Humidity, Percent 

Section (at given depth interval) (inches) 

0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 5.5–6 

Control 1 45 54 61 54 

Test section 1 36 46 51 54 

Test section 2 58 53 38 – 

Test section 3 – – – – 

Test section 4 43 – – – 

Control 5 42 50 53 70 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

Generally, below 5.1 cm in depth, the relative humidity of samples is more than 80 percent. This 

is enough moisture for ASR to proceed. 

PETROGRAPHIC EXAMINATION 

Each year, one core from each test section was examined using methods of ASTM C 856, 

Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete. Sections from each of the cores were cut 

and lapped. These sections were then soaked overnight and dried, and the entire lapped surface 

was traversed under a stereo microscope. Each lapped surface was divided into five or more 

traverse areas and examined at magnifications of 10 to 30 times. All instances of cracks, alkalisilica gel, and deteriorated or reacted aggregate particles were counted. The petrographic 

observations are presented in appendix B. Table 23 gives a summary of the petrographic findings 

for the years 1997 and 1998. In the previous year’s petrographic studies, the reactive particles 

and gel locations were not counted. From the petrographer’s notes in appendix B, signs of ASR 

became widespread in the 1996 cores and continued to spread in the cores from 1997 and 1998. 

Notes from the 1996 core study indicate there was no significant difference between the 

cores from the control sections and those from the treated sections. All examined surfaces 

had abundant distressed fine aggregate and most potentially reactive particles had reacted to 

some extent. Microcracks and incipient microcracks were widespread. Gel was widely 
41 

distributed throughout the cores. There also appeared to be a tendency for the cores to fracture 

parallel to the wearing surface. 

Table 23 indicates there is little difference in the amount of reacting particles and gel locations 

in cores from all the sections for 1997 and 1998. The test areas had, on average, slightly less 

cracking, reacted particles, and visible gel locations than the control areas. Generally in these 2 

years, all cores were moderately to severely distressed from the effects of ASR. Reactive 

particles and gel locations were widespread. 

Table 23. Summary of petrographic findings for 1997 and 1998. 

Cracks Reactive Particles Gel 

Locations Core 

ID Year 

Micro Large Fine Coarse 

C1 1997 

1998 

40 

77 

1 

1 

24 

39 

3 

0 

27 

49 

C5 1997 

1998 

34 

57 

1 

0 

27 

42 

3 

0 

31 

79 

TS1 1997 

1998 

87 

50 

0 

2 

31 

38 

0 

0 

42 

61 

TS2 1997 

1998 

43 

64 

0 

1 

29 

23 

0 

0 

33 

58 

TS3 1997 

1998 

17 

25 

0 

0 

23 

15 

0 

0 

25 

43 

TS4 1997 

1998 

8 

14 

0 

0 

31 

15 

0 

0 

13 

44 

Average for control 

sections (97 and 98) 52.0 0.8 33.0 1.5 46.5 

Average for treated 

sections (97 and 98) 38.5 0.4 25.6 0.0 39.9 

SUMMARY OF NEWARK, DE TEST SITE 

Five control sections and four test sections treated with lithium hydroxide were evaluated. All 

sections increased in distress over the 4-year evaluation. Significant differences between all 

sections were seen between the north and south ends of the test area due to differences in 

exposure to moisture. The lithium hydroxide did not appear to be effective in stopping or 

significantly slowing the ASR deterioration at this test site.

43 

CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FROM BORON, CA 

INTRODUCTION 

This site consists of two eastbound lanes of State Route 58 eastbound in Boron, CA, as well as 

an overhead structure carrying State Route 58 over a rail spur immediately before the test 

section. The individual test sites and test results are described in the following sections. 

BORON OVERHEAD 

The Boron overhead, Bridge No. 50-353R 9-KER-58-R141.5, consists of two parallel structures 

carrying State Route 58 over the rail spur leading to the U.S. Borax mine in Boron, CA. Each 

structure consists of a three-span continuous bridge with no expansion joints. Each bridge has 

two traffic lanes and a shoulder. The bridge beams were cast integrally with the deck slab. The 

entire deck appears to be undergoing significant ASR, as manifested by widespread visible map 

cracking. The deck surface was treated with a methacrylate (HMWM) in 1995, into which a 

coarse, rounded sand was broadcast. Figure 35 shows a photograph of the deck surface. 

Figure 35. Treated section on Boron overhead structure 

over State Route 58 looking east (Boron, CA). 

Pavement Sections 

The following information was excerpted from the CTL report (Stark to Surdahl letter, dated 

October 8, 1997): 

This pavement section is located on State Route 58 between Barstow and Mojave 

near Boron on the Kern-San Bernardino county line in California. The pavement 

of interest was built between 1971 and 1974 as part of a four-lane divided section 

with 20.32-cm (8-inch) portland cement concrete slip-formed onto 10.16 to 15.24 

cm (4 to 6 inches) of cement-treated base. The concrete was made using lowalkali cement (less than 0.60 percent equivalent to Na2O) and natural sand and 
44 

gravel from a source in Barstow. In the early to middle 1980s, observations of this 

and several other concrete structures containing aggregate from the same source 

revealed deleterious ASR. In 1991, SHRP discussion with CALTRANS 

[California Department of Transportation] personnel revealed major surface 

cracking had been observed in the State Route 58 pavement. In 1988, a high 

molecular weight methacrylate (HMWM) had been applied to the pavement 

wearing surface in selected westbound sections near Boron to minimize cracking 

development and improve and prolong traffic service life, particularly with truck 

loading. A side effect would be to minimize any effects of deleterious ASR. In 

1991, cores were taken as part of the SHRP program to confirm the occurrence of 

ASR and estimate the depth of penetration of the HMWM into the pavement 

concrete. 

Observations 

As noted in SHRP-C-343, six full-depth 10.16-cm (4-inch) diameter cores were 

taken from the experimental pavement section of Route 58, and sawed and finely 

lapped in the longitudinal direction for microscopic examination. The 

examinations confirmed that deleterious ASR had developed in the pavement 

concrete, and that the reactive aggregate constituents were cryptocrystalline 

volcanics of rhyolite to andesite composition. These were evidenced by reaction 

rims on aggregate particles, microcracks in the concrete, and ASR gel in cracks 

and voids. The examinations revealed that the applied HMWM penetrated and 

filled surface cracks to maximum depths of 51 to 62 mm (2 to 2.25 inch). Also, 

HMWM was found to have penetrated and filled cracks as little as 0.05 m (0.002 

in) wide. 

Status of Test Sections 

For a period of years since 1988 when HMWM was applied, improved 

performance was noted, compared with sections with no treatment. For more than 

5 years, only minor additional surface cracking appeared, while more severe 

surface cracks continued to develop along transverse joints, and adjacent to other 

random cracks in untreated sections. Also, numerous small surface spalls 

continued to develop in the untreated sections but not in the treated sections. 

By 1995, 7 years after application of HMWM on State Route 58, it became 

apparent to CALTRANS that pavement performance both with and without the 

treatment reached a state of deterioration that required full-surface overlay. In 

1996, this asphalt overlay was completed. However, CALTRANS agreed to retain 

a short section of exposed pavement with HMWM. This is presently the only 

section still available for visual inspection. 

The test section described herein consists of two lanes of U.S. Route 52. Figures 36 and 37 show 

different views of the test pavement site, and figure 38 shows a plan of the test sections. The 

original test sections consisted of control 1, methacrylate 1, and methacrylate 2, all of which are 

located in the travel lane (number 2). Sections methacrylate 1 and methacrylate 2 were treated 
45 

with a single coat of methacrylate into which a sand was broadcast. In 1995, three test sections in 

the passing lane (number 1); control 2, control 3, and methacrylate 3 were added alongside the 

existing test areas in the travel lane (number 2) by CALTRANS to evaluate the effect of traffic 

loading on the ASR damage. The Boron Overhead section was also added at this time. Lane 1 

does not have the extreme damage present at the joints that lane 2 had. A coat of methacrylate 

was applied to the methacrylate 3 section in 1995, at the same time the bridge deck was treated. 

At that time, a second coat of methacrylate was added to section methacrylate 2 in the travel 

lane. Also, in 1995, the pavement on either side of the test section was overlayed with 

asphaltic concrete. The asphalt overlays were placed to reduce the maintenance liability of the 

large length of exposed ASR pavement adjacent to the test sections. 

Figure 36. Photograph showing part of Boron, CA, 

test site, M2, Station 250. 

Figure 37. Photograph showing part of Boron, CA, test 

site, M3, Station 160. 
46 

Figure 38. Plan view of Boron, CA, test site. 

MAP CRACKING 

All the sections making up the Boron, CA, test site had map cracking over 100 percent of 

their area in 1998. Most of the map cracking was of low severity, but there was some medium 

and high severity also. Figure 39 shows an example of high-severity map cracking. Figure 40 

shows a close-up view of typical map cracking at the Boron site. Figures 41 through 44 show 

the amount of each level of severity as a percentage of the total area for each section for all 

5 years of the study. In the travel lane, control section 1 (C1) had more severe map cracking than 

the methacrylate sections (M1 and M2). The cracking was less severe in M2 than in M1. It 

appears that the second application of methacrylate to section M2 in 1995 has helped reduce 

cracking. In the passing lane, methacrylate section 3 (M3) is performing better than control 

section 3 (C3). Overall, the passing lane sections are performing better than the travel lane 

sections. A description of the map cracking in each section is as follows: 

• Control 1—the map cracking in this section progressed from more than 90 percent low 

severity and the remainder medium in 1994, to about 70 percent low severity and 15 percent 

each for medium and high severity in 1998. 

• Methacrylate 1—the map cracking in 1998 in this section was less severe than C1, with just 

over 80 percent low severity and 20 percent medium severity. 

• Methacrylate 2—the map cracking in 1998 was less than in section M1. There was also some 

redirection in the severity levels after the second application of methacrylate in 1995. The 

level in 1998 was 90 percent low severity and 10 percent medium severity. The deterioration 

increased only slightly during the four years of study. 

• Control 3—the map cracking of 1998 in this section is at about the same level of severity as 

M2 in 1998, but the rate of increase in deterioration appears to be greater in C3 than in M2. 

• Methacrylate 3—this section has the least severe map cracking of all the sections. 

Approximately 95 percent of the section is low severity and 5 percent is medium severity. 

The amount of medium-severity distress has increased only slightly during the 4 years of 

study. 
47 

Figure 39. Example of high-severity map cracking 

(Boron, CA). 

Figure 40. Close-up photograph showing 

typical map cracking (Boron, CA). 
48 

1995 Map Cracking

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

Map Cracking (Area at Severity, percent)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 41. Map cracking as a percentage 

for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1995). 

1996 Map Cracking

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

Map Cracking (Area at Severity, percent)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 42. Map cracking as a percentage 

for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1996). 
49 

1997 Map Cracking

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

Map Cracking (Area at Severity, 

percent)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 43. Map cracking as a percentage 

for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1997). 

1998 Map Cracking

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

Map Cracking (Area at Severity, percent)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 44. Map cracking as a percentage 

for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1998). 

JOINT DISTRESS 

The widespread map cracking in the test sections made exact crack recording impossible. 

Therefore, only the large, clearly visible cracks were noted. The transverse joints were all 

completely distressed, with cracks and spalled areas occurring over the entire length of the joints. 

Figure 45 shows a photograph with an example of medium-severity joint distress. Figure 46 
50 

shows an example of high-severity joint distress. According to the LTPP criteria for rating 

joint distress, the entire length of each joint was rated at the highest severity level if at least 10 

percent of the joint length had the higher severity distress. 

Figure 45. Photograph showing medium-severity 

joint distress (Boron, CA). 

Figure 46. Photograph showing an example 

of high-severity joint distress (Boron, CA). 

Figures 47 through 50 are a series of graphs illustrating the amount and severity of joint distress 

for each section. There is also a series of graphs showing the actual lengths of distress at each 

level in figures 51 through 54. Both series compare all sections for each year. The 1998 

observations of the joint distress for individual sections are as follows: 
51 

• Control 1—the severity of joint distress in section C1 had increased from almost entirely low 

severity in 1994 to mostly high severity in 1998. This was the worst section of the five. At 

least 10 percent of the length of almost all joints in this section had at least some highseverity joint distress. The graph of actual length of each distress condition (figure 54) 

indicates that for 1998 most of the length was of medium severity. 

• Methacrylate 1—the methacrylate-1 section was the second worst section after C1. It had 

deteriorated from almost all low-severity distress in 1994 to 75 percent medium and 25 

percent high in 1998. The rating system used showed no joints of low severity, while the 

graph of actual lengths of distressed joint indicates there were some areas of low-severity 

distress. 

• Methacrylate 2—the methacrylate-2, with the second application of methacrylate, appeared 

to be performing better than the M1 section, which only had one application. This section 

was the best in the travel lane and second overall to the M3 section. The rating scheme rules 

imply that almost all the joint length was of medium-severity distress with a small amount of 

high-severity distress. The actual joint lengths show about one-third low severity, two-thirds 

medium, and a very small amount of high severity. 

• Control 3—section control 3 has a rating of medium severity over the full joint length using 

the 10 percent rating scheme, but the true lengths show a small amount of low severity. 

Section C3 in the passing lane is much better than the control C1 in the travel lane. 

• Methacrylate 3—the joint distress in section M3 appears to be more severe than that of C3 

when using the 10 percent rule. Using this rule, C3 is performing better than M3 with C3 

having all medium severity and M3 having mostly medium-, some high-, and a very small 

amount of low-severity distress. The actual length of each severity shows M3 has about twothirds of its joint length rated as low severity, one-third medium severity, and a very small 

amount of high severity. If the actual length of each severity is used for comparison, M3 is 

performing much better than C3. 

1995 Joint Distress (using 10% rule)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

Length of Joint Spalls at Given Severity (meters)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 47. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1995). 
52 

1996 Joint Distress (using 10% rule)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

Length of Joint Spalls at Given Severity (meters)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 48. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1996). 

1997 Joint Distress (using 10% rule)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

Length of Joint Spalls at Given Severity (meters)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 49. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1997). 
53 

1998 Joint Distress (using 10% rule)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

Length of Joint Spalls at Given Severity (meters)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 50. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1998). 

1995 Joint Distress

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

True Length of Joint Spalls at Given Severity (meters)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 51. True length of joint spalls 

at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1995). 
54 

1996 Joint Distress

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

True Length of Joint Spalls at Given Severity 

(meters)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 52. True length of joint spalls at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1996).

1997 Joint Distress

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

True Length of Joint Spalls at Given Severity 

(meters)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 53. True length of joint spalls at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1997).
55 

1998 Joint Distress

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3

Section

True Length of Joint Spalls at Given Severity 

(meters)

High

Medium

Low

Figure 54. True length of joint spalls at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1998).

In general, the sections in the travel lane had more severe joint distress than those sections in the 

passing lane. The control sections had the most severe joint distress in each lane relative to the 

treated areas. The second application of methacrylate to section M2 appeared to have helped, the 

severity of distress in M2 being less than that in section M1. 

WHEELPATH DISTRESS 

Visual surveys of the pavement sections were performed as previously done, with the wheelpath 

and centerline grading system changed to include sections with small, loose pieces in the highseverity (H) category. The wheelpaths and centerline were rated as follows: 

• Low—no clear longitudinal cracking pattern developed. 

• Medium—clear longitudinal cracking pattern developed with no spalls greater than 7.6 cm. 

• High—clear longitudinal cracking pattern developed with spalls greater than 7.6 cm, or 

small, loose pieces. 

Table 24 shows the number of slabs in each section at each level of severity for all years of the 

study. Some variability in the ratings occurred due to site lighting conditions and other 

inspection variations. In 1997, all the methacrylate-treated systems had a combination of lowand medium-severity cracking. There was little difference between section M2, which had the 

second application of methacrylate, and section M1, which only had one application. Both 

control sections had the most severe cracking with control section C1, which is in the No. 2 

travel (truck) lane, having the most severe cracking. Section C1 had medium- and high-severity 

cracking while C3 had mostly medium severity with a small amount of low-severity cracking. In 

1998, C1 still had the most severe cracking. The severity of cracking in all the other sections but 

M3 had increased. Sections M1 and M2 had medium-severity cracking over the wheelpaths of all 

slabs in 1998. 
56 

Table 24. Wheelpath ratings for all sections, Boron, CA.

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3 Year L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H 

1994 0 27 5 1 32 0 0 32 1 – – – – – – 

1995 0 0 32 0 33 0 0 33 0 2 31 0 – – – 

1996 0 6 26 3 30 0 17 15 1 5 28 0 32 2 0 

1997 0 10 22 22 11 0 19 14 0 1 32 0 17 17 0 

1998 0 10 22 0 33 0 0 33 0 0 29 4 17 17 0 

CENTERLINE DISTRESS 

Table 25 shows the number of slabs in each section at each level of severity for all 5 years of the 

study for the centerline area of the sections. The same trend is evident here as in the 

wheelpath ratings. The ratings for all sections except M3 were more severe in 1998. Sections M1 

and M2 were actually rated less severe than M3 in 1997, but in 1998 they were rated more severe 

then in previous years. The two control sections were rated the most severely distressed with C1 

rated more severe than C3. Overall, the ratings in the centerline areas were much less severe than 

for the wheelpath areas. 

Table 25. Centerline ratings for all sections, Boron, CA.

C1 M1 M2 C3 M3 Year L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H 

1994 26 6 0 31 2 0 33 0 0 – – – – – – 

1995 0 32 0 13 20 0 33 0 0 32 1 0 – – – 

1996 3 22 7 33 0 0 30 3 0 30 3 0 33 0 0 

1997 1 26 5 33 0 0 33 0 0 30 3 0 30 3 0 

1998 7 25 0 8 25 0 27 6 0 4 29 0 30 3 0 

ELASTIC MODULUS AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 

At least four cores were removed from each section, with many of the removed cores extracted 

in small, already fractured pieces. The cores were 1.22 and 1.83 m from the shoulder stripe to 

reflect wheelpath and centerline areas, respectively. The specific locations were chosen to avoid 

interfering with previous cores. If a core was retrieved in a broken or damaged condition, another 

core was taken approximately 0.61 m east of the original core at the same distance from the 

shoulder stripe. 

The cores were tested to determine the compressive strength and elastic modulus of the concrete 

in both wet and dry conditions. The cores were tested in a dry as-received condition, then soaked 

in lime-saturated water for 2 weeks and retested. After the wet modulus tests were performed, 

the cores were tested to determine their compressive strength. The results of the dry modulus 

testing are shown in table 26. The results of the wet modulus testing are shown in table 27. 
57 

Table 26. Modulus dry tested elastic modulus (psi x 106

), Boron, CA. 

Section 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Control 1 (C1) 1.60 0.98 1.15 1.25 

Methacrylate 1 (M1) 1.28 1.13 1.14 1.47 

Methacrylate 2 (M2) 1.42 1.34 1.16 1.18 

Control 3 (C3) – 0.92 1.26 1.28 

Methacrylate 3 (M3) – 0.69 1.09 1.18 

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 

Table 27. Modulus wet tested elastic modulus (psi x 106), Boron, CA.

Section 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Control 1 (C1) 1.28 1.10 1.08 1.47 

Methacrylate 1 (M1) 1.00 0.99 1.12 1.82 

Methacrylate 2 (M2) 1.19 1.30 1.09 1.49 

Control 3 (C3) – 0.90 1.05 1.50 

Methacrylate 3 (M3) – 0.72 0.99 1.12 

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 

The results of the modulus testing show there is not much difference in modulus from one 

section to another. The wet and dry modulus values were generally similar. The one consistent 

trend is that the modulus for section M3 was the lowest in every year. 

The wet lime-saturated compressive strength results are given in table 28. The compressive 

strength results show no significant difference between the sections. Generally, there has been a 

decrease in strength of each section over the test years. 

Table 28. Compressive strength test results (Boron, CA).

Section 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Control 1 (C1) 4788 4270 3605 3731 

Methacrylate 1 (M1) 4052 4510 4041 4371 

Methacrylate 2 (M2) 4302 5137 3803 3609 

Control 3 (C3) – 3985 3495 3684 

Methacrylate 3 (M3) – 4280 3688 3744 

The cores tested may represent a minimum strength or modulus for intact cores. If a core was 

taken and it fell apart as it was being removed, another core was drilled. This biases the results 

because only solid cores can be tested. 

RELATIVE HUMIDITY MEASUREMENTS 

Relative humidity samples were removed from one or two locations in each section at various 

depth intervals, using a 38.1-mm-diameter bit and rotary hammer. The depth intervals and results 

of the relative humidity testing are shown in tables 29 through 33. Most of the relative humidity 

measurements were above 80 percent, especially below a depth of 10.2 cm. These results 
58 

indicate that even though the pavement is located in a very dry climate, sufficient moisture is still 

present to sustain the ASR. The humidity results for the bridge were much lower than the 

pavement. This is encouraging and indicates that methacrylate treatment of bridge decks may be 

much more effective at slowing ASR than when treating pavements. 

Table 29. Relative humidity testing (1994). 

Relative Humidity, Percent 

(at given depth interval) (inches) Test Area and 

Section Number 0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

Number 1 C3 88 89 93 92 

(Passing) Lane M3 69 81 87 87 

C1 93 87 93 90 

M1 78 91 97 92 Number 2 

(Travel) Lane M2 59 97 96 90 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

Table 30. Relative humidity testing (1995). 

Relative Humidity, Percent 

(at given depth interval) (inches) Test Area and 

Section Number 0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

Number 1 C3 36 63 62 86 

(Passing) Lane M3 46 72 86 90 

M1 45 70 62 89 

M2 72 84 86 89 

C1 68 64 90 89 

Number 2 

(Travel) Lane 

Bridge 37 55 66 65 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

Table 31. Relative humidity testing (1996). 

Relative Humidity, Percent (at given depth interval) 

(inches) Test Area and 

Section Number 0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

Number 1 C3 65 90 92 87 

(Passing) Lane M3 69 79 87 83 

C1 56 89 84 80 

M1 81 90 86 72 Number 2 

(Travel) Lane M2 44 74 70 78 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 
59 

Table 32. Relative humidity testing (1997). 

Relative Humidity, Percent (at given depth interval) 

(inches) Test Area and 

Section Number 0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

Number 1 C3 – – – –

(Passing) Lane M3 40 62 86 96 

M1 46 93 81 98 

M2 43 48 79 87 

C1 50 76 92 90 

Number 2 

(Travel) Lane 

Bridge 32 46 44 56 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

Table 33. Relative humidity testing (1998). 

Relative Humidity, Percent (at given depth interval) 

(inches) Test Area and 

Section Number 0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

Number 1 C3 48 75 100 100 

(Passing) Lane M3 58 76 97 96 

M1 100 100 100 100 

M2 100 54 100 93 

C1 100 100 100 100 

Number 2 

(Travel) Lane 

Bridge 32 39 52 62 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

PETROGRAPHIC EXAMINATION 

Two cores from each section were examined petrographically to document the condition of the 

concrete. The cores were cut length-wise and polished. These sections were then soaked overnight 

and dried, and the entire lapped surface was traversed under a stereo microscope. Each lapped 

surface was divided into five or more traverse areas and examined at magnifications of 10 to 30 

times. Because of their smaller diameters (6.99 cm (2.75 inches)), the Boron overhead bridge 

cores were divided into four traverses. All instances of cracks, alkali-silica gel, and deteriorated 

or reacted aggregate particles were counted. The petrographer’s notes for each year are included 

in appendix C. Table 34 gives a numerical summary of the findings for 1997 and 1998. 
60 

Table 34. Summary of petrographic findings for 1997 and 1998, Boron, CA. 

Core Cracks Reactive Particles 

ID Year Micro Large Fine Coarse 

Gel 

Locations 

C1-1 1997 

1998 

190 

86 

0 

5 

20 

21 

8 

22 

67 

49 

C1-2 1997 

1998 

– 

60 

– 

0 

– 

21 

– 

23 

– 

41 

C3-1 1997 

1998 

174 

50 

0 

3 

23 

8 

11 

11 

24 

28 

C3-2 1997 

1998 

190 

63 

0 

23 

30 

10 

26 

12 

44 

14 

M1-1 1997 

1998 

191 

51 

0 

1 

33 

9 

23 

9 

65 

20 

M1-2 1997 

1998 

– 

84 

– 

6 

– 

15 

– 

17 

– 

32 

M2-1 1997 

1998 

135 

72 

0 

3 

24 

7 

29 

12 

59 

12 

M2-2 1997 

1998 

– 

89 

– 

3 

– 

16 

– 

8 

– 

23 

M3-1 1997 

1998 

134 

66 

0 

0 

32 

7 

31 

14 

46 

29 

M3-2 1997 

1998 

– 

67 

– 

0 

– 

13 

– 

10 

– 

24 

OH-1 

Bridge 

1997 

1998 

22 

29 

0 

2 

0 

8 

0 

7 

0 

29 

OH-2 

Bridge 

1997 

1998 

– 

29 

– 

1 

– 

7 

– 

11 

– 

36 

A summary description of the cores from each section follows: 

• Boron overhead (bridges)—cores from 1997 and 1998 have shown moderately severe 

distress. This concrete is also poorly air-entrained. The top surface appeared moderately 

worn and partially coated with methacrylate. 

• Control 1—the wearing surface of the cores for the past 3 years (1996, 1997, 1998) was 

moderately to severely worn with frequently exposed fine aggregate particles. All of these 

cores appeared to be air-entrained with approximately 5 percent entrained air. The condition 

of the cores was classified as moderately distressed in 1996 and severely distressed in 1997 

and 1998. Observations indicated moderately frequent popouts over fine and coarse 

aggregates in the past 2 years. Microcracks, reacted particles, and gel locations are abundant 

and widespread within the concrete for all 3 years. Most, if not all, potentially reactive 

particles have reacted to some extent. 

• Control 3—the cores from 1996, 1997, and 1998 were classified as severely distressed with 

extensive microcracking throughout the cores. Multiple generations of alkali-silica gel are 

abundant and ubiquitous. The top surface of the cores, from 1997 and 1998, was severely 
61 

worn and had frequent exposed aggregate particles and worn popouts. The cores seemed to 

be well air-entrained with approximately 5 to 6 percent air content. 

• Methacrylate 1—the surface of the cores taken in 1997 and 1998 were severely worn with 

frequently exposed fine aggregate particles. The cores were classified as moderately severely 

to severely distressed. There was an abundance of reacted particles, microcracks, and gel 

locations within the concrete matrix. All potentially reactive aggregate particles appeared to 

have reacted and some were deteriorated. The core from 1996 showed microcracks 

perpendicular to the wearing surface filled with resin. The cores appeared to be marginally 

air-entrained, with an estimated air content of 4 to 5 percent. 

• Methacrylate 2—the wearing surface was severely worn. Aggregate particles were frequently 

exposed and polished. The cores were classified as moderately severe to severely distressed. 

The core from 1996 had a darkened area of the paste in the top 5 millimeters from the surface 

treatment. Distress was not prevalent in that area. The rest of that core and the cores from 

1997 and 1998 had microcracks widespread throughout the core. Multiple generations of gel 

were generally ubiquitous and moderately abundant to abundant. The cores were marginally 

air-entrained, with an estimated air content of 4 percent. 

• Methacrylate 3—the surface of the 1997 core was worn and partially coated. Occasional 

popouts over aggregates were evident. The core from 1998 had a severely worn surface with 

frequently exposed and polished aggregate particles. The cores were classified as moderately 

severely distressed. All potentially reactive particles appeared to have reacted to varying 

degrees. Multiple generations of gel were abundant. 

SUMMARY OF BORON, CA TEST SITE 

HMWM resin was topically applied to desert pavement sections with moderate to severe ASR 

distress. The methacrylate has extended the pavement life by filling cracks bonding the pieces of 

concrete and reducing spalling, especially near joints. The service life extension of one coat of 

HMWM appears to be about 3 to 5 years. Two coats of resin improved performance further. It is 

envisioned that periodic reapplication of HMWM would reduce future concrete spalling and 

continue to extend the pavement life. 

HMWM resin was also applied to a bridge deck having low to moderate ASR distress. The resin 

had been effective in bonding and sealing almost all of the cracks. No new visible cracking was 

noted over the study period. The relative humidity in the deck concrete is moderately low and to 

a level that should slow ASR deterioration. Preliminary results are promising and continued 

monitoring of this structure is recommended. 

63 

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FROM ALBUQUERQUE, NM 

The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department constructed test sections in 

June 1992 of a new highway to evaluate the capability of concrete admixtures to prevent 

expansion due to ASR. The pavement is a three-lane, uphill, left-turning approach to a bridge 

carrying Lomas Boulevard westbound over Interstate 40 (I-40) in eastern Albuquerque. The 

surface was smooth-finished, with no tining or grooving. An overall view of the test site and 

variables are shown in figures 55 and 56. Eleven test sections described in tables 35, each 12.2 to 

18.3 m in length, were constructed. 

Table 35. Test variables Lomas Boulevard, Albuquerque, NM. 

Test 

Section Aggregate Source Treatment 

1 Shakespeare 1 percent LiOH

2 Shakespeare 0.5 percent LiOH 

3 Shakespeare Lomar—HRWR at 0.59 L/45.6 kg (20 

oz/hundredweight (cwt))

4 Shakespeare Class F fly ash, 25 percent replacement of cement 

5 Shakespeare Class C fly ash, 25 percent replacement of cement 

6 Shakespeare Control 

7 Shakespeare Blend of Class C and F fly ash (1:1), 25 percent 

replacement of cement 

8 Grevey Class F fly ash, 25 percent replacement of cement 

9 Grevey Control 

10 Grevey 1 percent LiOH 

11 Grevey Class C fly ash, 25 percent replacement of cement 

A single source of portland cement with 0.55 percent total alkalies [as Na2O] was used 

throughout the project. The complete concrete mix characteristics are given in appendix D. 
64 

507.8 ft 

Greevey Aggregate Pit Shakespeare Pit Aggregate 

200.4 ft 307.4 ft 

12 ft 

Class C 

Fly Ash 

1% 

LiOH 

Control 

(Grevey) 

Class F 

Fly Ash 

Blended 

C&F 

Fly Ash 

Control 

(Shakespeare) 

Class C 

Fly Ash 

Class F 

Fly Ash 

Lom

20 o

cw

(.59 L

k

12 ft 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 

58 ft 44.4 ft 53 ft 45 ft 50.7 ft 45 ft 46.5 ft 42.3 ft 44.

1 m = 3.28 ft 

Figure 55. New Mexico ASR test section layout—westbound approach slabs 

to Lomas Boulevard (State Route 352) bridge over I-25. 

Traffic 
65 

Figure 56. Lomas Boulevard westbound structure 

over I-40 (Albuquerque, NM). 

The following information was reported: 

• This project was designed under the SHRP program to evaluate the relative effectiveness of 

certain mineral and chemical admixtures in preventing deleterious ASR in new pavement 

construction. For this purpose, two similar, well-documented, highly reactive coarse and fine 

aggregates from Albuquerque, and a low-alkali cement, were used as the major components 

of the test pavement. ASTM Class F and Class C fly ash, and lithium hydroxide monohydrate 

(LiOH·H2O), were included as admixtures. 

• The concrete test section is a 9.15-m (30.02-ft) wide, three-lane pavement, 20.3 cm (8 

inches) thick, and is placed on a 15.2-cm (6-inch) thick cement-treated base. This base layer 

is underlain full-width by a filter fabric layer. 

• In view of favorable laboratory test results demonstrating its capability to prevent expansion 

due to ASR, the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department agreed to use 

LiOH in new highway construction in Albuquerque. Location of the experimental pavement 

was the approach lanes to a bridge on Lomas Boulevard (State Route 352) over I-40. 

• Ten test sections, each 12.2 to 18.3 m (40.03 to 60.04 ft) long, were included in the 

experimental pavement. Two local sources of sand and gravel, including AL, were used 

separately in various test sections. In addition to LiOH, a Class F and a Class C fly ash were 

used separately with each aggregate at approximately 25 percent mass replacement of 

cement. A single section made with aggregate AL contained 25 percent mass replacement fly 

ash consisting of 50 percent Class F (the same source) and 50 percent Class C (different 

source) ash. LiOH·H2O was added at the rate of 0.5 percent and 1 percent by mass of cement 

with aggregate AL, but only 1 percent by mass of cement with aggregate from the other, 

nearby source. Control sections also were built in which neither fly ash or LiOH was 
66 

included. A single source of portland cement with approximately 0.55 percent equivalent 

Na2O was used through the project. Installation was carried out in June 1992. 

• One concern with using LiOH was its uniform dispersion in the concrete batches in the 

ready-mix trucks. To maximize uniformity, mixing water was introduced into the trucks the 

night before placement and the appropriate amount of powdered LiOH·H2O added to the 

water. The trucks were batched the next day, driven to the job site and the concrete 

discharged in the forms 20 to 30 minutes after the beginning of mixing. It was found that the 

presence of LiOH in the concrete had no discernible effect on slump or air content compared 

with the control concrete. Also, joint-sawing could be carried out on the schedule for the 

control concrete. Overall, no schedule allowances were required in the mixing and placing 

sequences for the LiOH additions. 

• Subsequent to placement, unused materials were evaluated in the rapid immersion test 

method to evaluate the ability of the fly ashes to suppress expansive ASR with aggregates 

from the two sources used in the experiment pavement. Mortar bars also were made to 

evaluate the effect of LiOH on ASR, using C 227 storage conditions. The proportions of fly 

ash and LiOH to cement were the same as those used in the pavement. Cement B, with 

0.18 percent equivalent Na2O, was used for rapid immersion tests in 1N NaOH solution. Data 

indicate that both coarse and fine aggregate from both sources are potentially deleteriously 

reactive since they all greatly exceed the 0.08 percent test criterion. This confirms previous 

field performance observations. These results also indicate the use of the Class C fly ash had 

little beneficial effect on suppressing ASR, whereas the Class F ash reduced expansions 

below the test criterion. Specimens containing the Class C + Class F mixture produced 

expansion somewhat greater than the test criterion. Continued monitoring of this 

experimental pavement over a period of years should validate these test results. Test mixtures 

containing LiOH admixtures and stored under C 227 conditions are too young to provide 

meaningful results. Thus, they are not reported here. 

The Albuquerque pavement test section was inspected in the fall in each of the 5 years following 

construction. The most recent inspection was performed on October 1, 1998. Annual tests 

performed included visual inspection and crack mapping, faulting measurements, relative 

humidity measurements, FWD readings, and core removal for wet and dry modulus testing and 

petrographic studies. The cores were taken by New Mexico DOT personnel. 

CONDITION OF PAVEMENT SECTIONS 

The condition of the pavement test section was determined by visual inspection. Notes were 

made as to extent of map cracking, transverse cracking, joint spalling, joint seal condition, 

patching, popouts, and other LTPP criteria. The condition of each section relative to the others in 

the test area was also noted. The results of the 1998 visual inspection are given in table 36. 

Photographs of the various test sections are shown in figure 57. 
67 

Table 36. Visual inspection notes for October 1, 1998 (Albuquerque, NM).

Test 

Section 

Treatment –Aggregate 

Source 

Observations 

1 1 percent LiOH—

Shakespeare 

Fine map cracking developing in areas of the right 

wheelpath. In the left wheelpath, there is slightly visible 

map cracking. The centerline has light, barely visible map 

cracking. In general, the entire section except along the 

curb has faint to light map cracking. 

2 0.5 percent LiOH—

Shakespeare 

The entire section has light map cracking that is slightly 

more visible than in section 1. The left wheelpath has 

slightly more visible cracking than the right wheelpath. 

3 Lomar—Shakespeare 

Occasional cracking was noted but no map cracking 

except for one faint area in the right wheelpath. Very 

rough original surface texture in approximately 80 percent 

of the test area due to rain damage while plastic. 

4 Class F Fly Ash—

Shakespeare 

Areas of occasional very light surface cracking exist in 

first slab in left wheelpath. A few cracks exist near the 

lane centerline. 

5 Class C Fly Ash—

Shakespeare 

Two full-width transverse cracks, well-defined transverse 

and longitudinal cracks, well-defined map cracking over 

entire surface with some raveling of the cracks were 

observed. Cracking is worse in wheelpaths. The average 

size of the pieces between cracks is 7.6 cm (3 inches). 

6 Control—Shakespeare Entire section, except along curb, has faint map cracking. 

Fine cracks have developed at a transverse joint. 

7 Blended C & F Fly 

Ash—Shakespeare 

Some areas of faint map cracking were found. 

8 Class F Fly Ash—

Grevey 

The entire area has faint to light map cracking. 

Concentrated in the left wheelpath. Some joint spalling is 

present. 

9 Control—Grevey 

Very faint map cracking was observed over the entire 

section. 

10 1 percent LiOH—Grevey

Very faint map cracking was found but less visible than in 

section 9. Areas of rough and irregular finish exist. 

11 Class C Fly Ash—

Grevey 

Longitudinal cracks were found in left wheelpath and 

along centerline, fine wheelpath map cracking and 

transverse cracks were also developing, and areas of 

rough and irregular finish exist. Severity of map cracking 

is between that of sections 9 and 10. 
68 

(a) 1% LiOH—Shakespeare aggregate (b) 0.5% LiOH—Shakespeare aggregate 

(c) Lomar—Shakespeare aggregate (d) Class F Ash—Shakespeare 

(e) Class C Ash—Shakespeare (f) Control—Shakespeare 

Figure 57. Photographs of all sections in Albuquerque, NM. 
69 

(g) Blended C & F Ash—Shakespeare (h) Class F Ash—Grevey Aggregate 

(i) Control—Grevey (j) 1% LiOH—Grevey 

(k) Class C Ash—Grevey 

Figure 57. Photographs of all sections in Albuquerque, NM (continued). 

TRANSVERSE JOINT SPALLING 

The amount and severity of transverse joint spalling was used as an indicator of the section 

condition. The amount of transverse joint spalling in the years 1994 to 1998 is shown in the 

series of figures in appendix D. The amount of joint spalling for all sections increased over the 

4 years of the study. The largest increase in this deterioration occurred between 1997 and 1998. 

The severity of the joint spalling was rated high, medium, or low. LTPP criteria define spalling 

of transverse joints as follows: 
70 

• Low—7.6-cm (3-inch) wide pieces with or without loss of concrete (just cracking). 

• Medium—7.6- to 15.2-cm (3- to 6-inch) pieces with loss of concrete. 

• High—greater than 15.2-cm (6-inch) pieces with loss of concrete. 

The highest level of severity that occurred along the joint was then used to designate the entire 

length of the joint. There are significant differences between the performances of the sections. 

However, joint distress is not as good an indicator of ASR damage as map cracking. Each section 

has only 2 or 3 interior joints, while the remaining joints are at transition areas between test 

sections. Table 37 summarizes the percent transverse joint spalling and notes the highest level of 

severity. 

Table 37. Summary of transverse joint spalling (1998). 

Test 

Section Treatment 

Length of 

Transverse 

Spalling 

(meters) 

Total 

Length 

(meters) 

Percent 

of Total 

Highest 

Severity

1 1 percent LiOH (S) 5.8 10.6 55 H 

2 0.5 percent LiOH (S) 5.5 7.1 77 M 

3 Lomar (S) 4.3 7.1 60 H 

4 Class F Ash (S) 5.2 10.6 49 L 

5 Class C Ash (S) 7.1 7.1 100 M 

6 Control (S) 7.0 10.6 66 L 

7 Blended C & F (S) 7.0 10.6 66 L 

8 Class F Ash (G) 5.5 7.1 77 H 

9 Control (G) 8.1 10.6 76 L 

10 1 percent LiOH (G) 5.5 7.1 77 L 

11 Class C Ash (G) 11.0 10.6 100 L 

For the sections made with Shakespeare aggregate, the section with the best performance was the 

section that contains Class F fly ash, with just over 49 percent of the joint affected with lowseverity joint spalling (cracking). The next best sections were the control section and the section 

containing blended Class F and Class C fly ashes. Both had about 66 percent of low-severity 

joint spalling. The worst performances were in the sections that contain Lomar, which had 

approximately 60 percent of high-severity spalling, and the 1 percent LiOH section, which had 

55 percent of low- and high-severity spalling. The sections with 0.5 percent LiOH or Class C fly 

ash were between the others with about 77 percent and 100 percent of moderate-severity joint 

spalling, respectively. 

For the sections made with the Grevey aggregate, the best performing sections were the control 

and the 1 percent LiOH. Each had about 76 percent of low severity spalling. The Class C fly ash 

section was performing better than the Class F fly ash section. The Class C had only low severity 

spalling over 100 percent of the joints while the Class F section had high severity spalling over 

77 percent of the entire joint length. 
71 

There are some contradictory results when comparing the sections with the two aggregates. With 

the Shakespeare aggregate, the Class F fly ash outperformed the Class C fly ash, while with the 

Grevey aggregate, the Class C fly ash performed better than the Class F fly ash. With the 

Shakespeare aggregate, the section with the 1 percent LiOH had higher severity spalling than the 

0.5 percent LiOH section. The section with Grevey aggregate and 1 percent LiOH performed 

better than either LiOH test section made with Shakespeare aggregate. The control sections with 

both aggregates had the same, low amount and severity of joint spalling. 

MAP CRACKING 

The amount and severity of map cracking is a good early indicator of the extent of ASR 

occurring in each section. The area of map cracking as a percent of the total area is shown in 

figure 58. This figure shows that, for most sections, the area of map cracking had increased 

substantially between 1996 and 1998. The section with Class C fly ash and Shakespeare 

aggregate had extensive map cracking over the entire test area in 1995, except for a small area 

along the curb. The section with Class F fly ash and Shakespeare aggregate was performing the 

best of all the sections, with less than 10 percent of its area covered by map cracking. The Lomar 

section was the next best with about 15 percent map cracking. Several sections, especially those 

with Grevey aggregate, had extensive map cracking appear only within the last 2 years of the 

study. 

Map Cracking Summary

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-1% LiOH

2-0.5% LiOH

3-Lomar

4-Class F Fly Ash

5-Class C Fly Ash

6-Control

7-Blended C&F Fly Ash

8-Class F Fly Ash

9-Control

10-1% LiOH

11-Class C Fly Ash

Treatment

Area of Map Cracking

(percent of total section area)

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Figure 58. Area of map cracking as a percentage 

of the total area (all sections, Albuquerque, NM). 
72 

MODULUS TESTING OF CORES 

Cores taken by New Mexico DOT personnel were shipped to laboratories for testing. Some of the 

cores were prepared by cutting them to length and squaring the ends. These cores were first tested 

for elastic modulus in the as-received, dry condition, then soaked for 2 weeks in lime-saturated 

water and retested. The elastic modulus tests were performed using an external compressometer. 

The results of the modulus of elasticity tests cores in the dry condition for all 5 years are given in 

table 38. The test results for the cores in the wet or saturated condition are shown in table 39. 

The cores were not tested in the wet condition in 1994. Except from 1994 to 1995, the overall 

annual average moduli, both wet and dry, declined. The overall standard deviation generally 

increased over this same time. The moduli of all the sections did not decrease the same amount. 

Figure 59 shows the modulus of elasticity tested in the as-received state for all the sections over 

the four years. There are no obvious trends in most sections. The Class C fly ash section with the 

Shakespeare aggregate (S) is the only section that showed a uniform decrease in the modulus 

over the past four years. The modulus results from testing in the wet state are shown in figure 60. 

Here, the trend of decreasing modulus over the four years is more distinct. Most sections show a 

decrease in elastic modulus from 1995 to 1998. Again the Class C fly ash with Shakespeare 

aggregate section has the largest and most consistent decrease in modulus. The other sections 

maintained moderately high modulus properties. 

Table 38. Elastic modulus test results dry condition 

(psi x 106

, average of 2 cores) Albuquerque, NM. 

Dry 

Section 

No. Description* 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Percent Loss 

From 

1994–1998 

1 1 percent LiOH (S) 4.10 4.68 5.11 4.09 3.89 4 

2 0.5 percent LiOH (S) 4.06 4.43 4.71 3.61 3.69 8 

3 Lomar (S) 4.15 4.91 4.75 3.83 4.18 -1 

4 Class F Ash (S) 3.80 3.95 3.89 4.14 4.02 -6 

5 Class C Ash (S) 2.16 2.90 2.39 1.72 1.24 32 

6 Control (S) 3.52 4.08 3.29 3.59 3.47 1 

7 Class C & F Ash (S) 3.30 3.67 3.66 3.60 3.28 1 

8 Class F Ash (G) 3.53 4.24 3.77 4.04 3.31 5 

9 Control (G) 3.33 4.02 3.50 3.31 3.57 -6 

10 1 percent LiOH (G) 3.20 3.28 3.15 3.74 3.70 -1 

11 Class C Ash (G) 3.71 4.34 3.85 4.26 3.62 2 

Average 3.53 4.05 3.82 3.63 3.45 2 

Standard Deviation 0.56 0.59 0.79 0.70 0.78 

*(S) = Shakespeare aggregate; (G) = Grevey aggregate 

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 
73 

Table 39. Elastic modulus test results wet condition 

(psi x 106

, average of 2 cores), Albuquerque, NM. 

Wet 

Section 

No Description* 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Percent Loss 

From 

1995–1998 

1 1 percent LiOH (S) – 5.06 4.47 4.08 4.02 21 

2 0.5 percent LiOH (S) – 4.05 4.09 3.46 3.46 15 

3 Lomar (S) – 5.07 4.54 3.96 3.87 24 

4 Class F Ash (S) – 4.08 4.03 4.05 3.43 16 

5 Class C Ash (S) – 3.22 2.57 1.79 1.39 57 

6 Control (S) – 3.89 3.20 3.40 3.30 15 

7 Class C & F Ash (S) – 3.82 3.66 3.69 3.36 12 

8 Class F Ash (G) – 4.57 3.54 3.82 3.54 23 

9 Control (G) – 4.02 3.82 3.56 3.50 13 

10 1 percent LiOH (G) – 3.29 3.09 3.58 3.65 -11 

11 Class C Ash (G) – 4.44 3.96 3.46 3.58 19 

Average – 4.14 3.72 3.53 3.37 18 

Standard Deviation – 0.61 0.60 0.63 0.69 – 

*(S) = Shakespeare aggregate; (G) = Grevey aggregate 

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 

Elastic Modulus (Dry) New Mexico

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1% LiOH

(S)

0.5%

LiOH (S)

Lomar

(S)

Class F

Ash (S)

Class C

Ash (S)

Control

(S)

Class C

& F Ash

(S)

Class F

Ash (G)

Control

(G)

1% LiOH

(G)

Class C

Ash (G)

Modulus of Elasticity (psi x 10^6)

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 

Figure 59. Modulus of elasticity test results for cores in the dry 

condition (all sections, Albuquerque, NM). 
74 

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 

Figure 60. Modulus of elasticity test results for cores in the saturated 

condition (all sections, Albuquerque, NM). 

The increased scatter in the dry-tested results may be due to the cores being tested in the asshipped condition. Depending on the storage conditions and time elapsed from coring to testing, 

the moisture content of the cores from one year’s testing to another could change considerably. 

When tested in the saturated state, the condition of the cores from one year to the next are 

similar. This results in more consistent results and less scatter. If the concrete has internal 

cracking and gel due to ASR, the concrete modulus is expected to decrease. Wetting causes the 

gel to imbibe water and swell. This swelling should reduce the modulus further than if the 

concrete is tested dry. 

RELATIVE HUMIDITY 

The relative humidity values of the concrete pavement sections as they vary with depth are given 

in tables 40 through 44. The relative humidity values are similar from year to year, with levels 

increasing with depth. Generally, all of the samples had relative humidities of approximately 70 

percent or higher at the deepest level measured, from 15.2- to 16.5-cm (6- to 6.5-inch) depths. 

The 100 percent humidity values for the top portions in 1998 were caused by rain showers that 

occurred during the site inspection. None of the test variables are expected to alter the humidity 

within the concrete. The data shows the wide variability of concrete humidity in pavements and 

confirms that sufficient moisture is normally available to promote ASR within the concrete. 
75 

Table 40. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1994). 

Relative Humidity, Percent 

(at given depth interval) (inches) Section 

No. Description* 

0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

1 1 percent LiOH (S) 76 78 95 95 

2 0.5 percent LiOH (S) 56 64 75 82 

3 Lomar (S) 42 68 78 80 

4 Class F Ash (S) 63 74 85 90 

5 Class C Ash (S) 90 87 86 87 

6 Control (S) 44 78 82 85 

7 Class C & F Blend (S) 58 60 80 83 

8 Class F (G) 59 82 87 91 

9 Control (G) 54 73 84 88 

10 1 percent LiOH (G) 62 77 87 88 

11 Class C (G) 65 70 80 84 

*(S) = Shakespeare aggregate; (G) = Grevey aggregate 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

Table 41. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1995). 

Relative Humidity, Percent 

(at given depth interval) (inches) Section 

No. Description* 

0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

1 1 percent LiOH (S) – 59 – 90 

2 0.5 percent LiOH (S) 38 – – 76 

3 Lomar (S) 41 53 – 63 

4 Class F Ash (S) 51 50 80 81 

5 Class C Ash (S) 60 73 74 80 

6 Control (S) 42 56 73 70 

7 Class C & F Blend (S) 39 59 73 74 

8 Class F (G) 41 61 77 72 

9 Control (G) 43 60 76 71 

10 1 percent LiOH (G) 44 55 74 76 

11 Class C (G) 41 61 72 70 

*(S) = Shakespeare aggregate; (G) = Grevey aggregate 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 
76 

Table 42. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1996). 

Relative Humidity, Percent 

(at given depth interval) (inches) Section 

No. Description* 

0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

1 1 percent LiOH (S) 63 79 78 87 

2 0.5 percent LiOH (S) 42 68 81 90 

3 Lomar (S) 48 66 77 85 

4 Class F Ash (S) 82 68 62 81 

5 Class C Ash (S) 82 67 60 69 

6 Control (S) 58 66 59 75 

7 Class C & F Blend (S) 59 61 66 82 

8 Class F (G) 31 72 79 82 

9 Control (G) 64 62 74 81 

10 1 percent LiOH (G) 55 63 75 82 

11 Class C (G) 47 59 73 79 

*(S) = Shakespeare aggregate; (G) = Grevey aggregate 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

Table 43. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1997). 

Relative Humidity, Percent 

(at given depth interval) (inches) Section 

No. Description* 

0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

1 1 percent LiOH (S) 63 67 72 81 

2 0.5 percent LiOH (S) 93 66 74 83 

3 Lomar (S) 35 47 58 80 

4 Class F Ash (S) 65 73 83 88 

5 Class C Ash (S) 52 93 96 90 

6 Control (S) 38 55 77 73 

7 Class C & F Blend (S) 41 65 80 77 

8 Class F (G) 83 63 100 88 

9 Control (G) 37 55 90 99 

10 1 percent LiOH (G) 38 63 92 100 

11 Class C (G) 36 37 95 100 

*(S) = Shakespeare aggregate; (G) = Grevey aggregate 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 
77 

Table 44. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1998). 

Relative Humidity, Percent 

(at given depth interval) (inches) Section 

No. Description* 

0.5–1 2–2.5 4–4.5 6–6.5 

1 1 percent LiOH (S) 33 42 88 69 

2 0.5 percent LiOH (S) 100 100 71 89 

3 Lomar (S) 100 100 49 51 

4 Class F Ash (S) 100 100 53 79 

5 Class C Ash (S) 100 100 100 100 

6 Control (S) 100 100 100 100 

7 Class C & F Blend (S) 100 100 100 100 

8 Class F (G) 100 100 100 100 

9 Control (G) 100 100 100 100 

10 1 percent LiOH (G) 100 100 100 100 

11 Class C (G) 100 100 100 100 

*(S) = Shakespeare aggregate; (G) = Grevey aggregate 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

PETROGRAPHIC EXAMINATION 

A petrographic examination was done on one core from each test section each year. The core 

was cut into the largest possible square prism, and two faces of the prism were lapped. Parallel 

sections were marked on each lapped face to delineate each traverse and ensure that the entire 

lapped surface was examined. Evidence of reaction, in the form of gel and cracks characteristic 

of ASR and associated with aggregate particles and reactive particles, were then counted on both 

lapped faces. 

As discussed previously, the relative numbers of reactive coarse and fine aggregate particles 

should be regarded as approximate, since alkali-silica gel is highly mobile and may have 

migrated away from the originating particle. The petrographer’s observations are in appendix D. 

A summary of the observations from the cores for 1998 is given in tables 45 and 46. 

SUMMARY OF LOMAS BOULEVARD, ALBUQUERQUE, NM, TEST SITE 

Some test sections show visual indications of distress after 6 years of service. Based on the 

visual inspection, area of map cracking, and transverse joint spalling, only three sections appear 

to be performing better than the controls: 

Section

4 Class F Fly Ash—Shakespeare 

3 Lomar (HRWA)—Shakespeare 

7 Blend Class C and F Ash—Shakespeare 
78 

Section 5 (Class C fly ash—Shakespeare) and section 11 (Class C fly ash—Grevey) are clearly 

performing the worst and considerable worse than the control concretes. Sections 2 (0.5 percent 

LiOH) and section 8 (Class F fly ash—Grevey) may be slightly worse than the controls. Section 

10 (1 percent LiOH—Grevey) and section 1 (1 percent LiOH—Shakespeare) appear similar to 

the controls. 

Section 5 (Class C fly ash—Shakespeare) was the only section to exhibit a large decrease in the 

wet concrete modulus of elasticity. 1998 modulus values for section 5 were half the value of the 

other test sections. Section 5 cores also had the most microcracking, gel, and reacted aggregate 

particles, identified by petrographic examination. 

From petrographic studies of one core in 1998, sections 1 (1 percent LiOH (S)) and 2 

(0.5 percent LiOH (S)) had fewer microcracks, gel, and reacted particles than the control. 

However, section 10 (1 percent LiOH (G)) with Grevey aggregate had similar distress as the 

control. 

Sections 3 (Lomar (S)) and 4 (Class F (S)) had less microcracking than the control but similar 

numbers of reacted particles. All cores exhibit some internal microcracking, gel, and reacted 

particles. 

ASR has not reduced serviceability of any of the test sections after 6 years. However, Class C fly 

ash addition with Shakespeare aggregate has accelerated deterioration. The addition of Class F 

fly ash, combined Class F and Class C fly ash, and Lomar (HRWA) may have improved the 

ASR resistance of concrete made with Shakespeare aggregate. However, none of the test 

materials has eliminated ASR only affected its rate. No clear or significant differences have been 

seen when using Class F fly ash, Class C fly ash, or 1 percent LiOH with Grevey aggregate. 

Continued monitoring of this test pavement is recommended. 
79 

Table 45. Summary of petrographic examination of cores for 1998 

(S = Shakespeare, G = Grevey). 

Section Description 

1 

1% LiOH 

(S) 

Few instances of deterioration. The wearing surface has a slightly to moderately worn surface with 

occasional popouts over aggregate particles. Three microcracks were counted, and 24 occurrences of 

alkali-silica gel. Three coarse and 36 fine aggregate particles show slight evidence of reaction. 

2 

0.5% LiOH 

(S) 

The wearing surface has a moderately worn surface on which aggregate particles are occasionally 

exposed. The core is very slightly distressed. Seven cracks and 24 instances of alkali-silica gel were 

counted. Two coarse and 27 fine aggregate particles show evidence of reaction. One fine aggregate 

particle was severely distressed. 

3 

Lomar 

(S) 

The wearing surface is moderately severely worn with frequent exposed aggregate particles, some 

apparently in old, worn popouts. The core shows abundant evidence of reaction but little distress. 

Two microcracks and 68 occurrences of gel were detected. Two coarse and 35 fine aggregate 

particles show evidence of reaction or distress. 

4 

Class F 

Fly Ash 

(S) 

The wearing surface is severely worn with frequent exposed coarse and fine aggregate particles. 

Surface wear is too great to determine whether it included any popouts. The core shows evidence of 

reaction but little distress. Five microcracks were detected, and 51 instances of alkali-silica gel. Ten 

coarse and 51 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of distress or reaction. 

5 

Class C 

Fly Ash 

(S) 

The wearing surface is severely worn, with numerous exposed coarse and fine aggregate particles, 

one empty coarse aggregate particle socket, and five visible cracks, three of which intersect near the 

center of the core. The core is severely distressed. In addition to the features noted above, Two 

hundred fifty-four microcracks and 135 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Fifty-two coarse 

and 75 fine aggregate particles show evidence of reaction or distress. 

6 

Control 

(S) 

The wearing surface is moderately worn with occasional exposed coarse and fine aggregate 

particles. The core shows slight evidence of distress or deterioration. Twenty-six microcracks and 

25 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Fourteen coarse and 32 fine aggregate particles show 

evidence of reaction or distress. 

7 

Blended C 

& F 

Fly Ash 

(S) 

The wearing surface is moderately worn with frequently exposed aggregate particles. The core 

shows considerable evidence of reaction but little evidence of distress. Ten microcracks and 92 

occurrences of alkali-silica gel were counted. Twenty-four coarse and 54 fine aggregate particles 

showed evidence of distress or reaction. 

8 

Class F 

Fly Ash 

(G) 

The wearing surface is severely worn with frequent exposed aggregate particles. There is 

considerable evidence of reaction but little evidence of distress. Twenty-one microcracks, chiefly 

contained within reacted aggregate particles, and 45 occurrences of alkali-silica gel were counted. 

Sixteen coarse and 36 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of reaction or distress. 

9 

Control 

(G) 

The wearing surface is moderately severely worn with frequent exposed aggregate particles. 

Although the core contains substantial evidence of ASR, apparent distress is slight. Twenty-one 

microcracks—chiefly limited to aggregate particles—and 58 instances of alkali-silica gel were 

counted. Sixteen coarse and 45 fine aggregate particles show evidence of distress or reaction. 

10 

1% LiOH 

(G) 

The wearing surface is moderately worn with moderately frequent exposed aggregate particles. The 

core contains abundant evidence of reaction, but little evidence of distress. Eighteen microcracks—

all contained in aggregate particles—and 77 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Twenty-one 

coarse and 51 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of reaction or distress. 

11 

Class C 

Fly Ash 

(G) 

The wearing surface is severely worn with frequent exposed aggregate particles. The core contains 

frequent evidence of reaction, but little evidence of distress. Eleven microcracks were counted, and 

55 instances of alkali-silica gel. Sixteen coarse and 60 fine aggregate particles show evidence of 

distress or reaction. 
80 

Table 46. Summary of petrographic examination. 

Section 

No. Microcracks Gel Reacted Coarse Particles

Reacted 

Fine 

Particles 

Total 

Events 

1 3 24 3 36 66 

2 7 24 2 27 60 

3 2 68 2 35 107 

4 5 51 10 51 117 

5 254 135 52 75 516 

6 26 25 14 32 97 

7 10 93 24 54 181 

8 21 45 16 36 118 

9 21 58 16 45 140 

10 18 77 21 51 167 

11 11 55 16 60 142 
81 

CHAPTER 6. FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER RESULTS 

INTRODUCTION 

The FWD is an impulse loading device used to simulate moving wheel loads and measure the 

corresponding pavement response. The FWD applies a dynamic load by dropping a mass from a 

predetermined height, as illustrated in figure 61. The mass drops onto a foot plate connected to a 

rigid 30-cm diameter base plate by means of thick rubber buffers, which act as springs. The 

falling weight subassembly is furnished so that different load magnitudes can be applied by 

varying the mass and drop height. The FWD load signal is a transient pulse with a duration of 

25 to 35 milliseconds. Seismic transducers, known as geophones, measure the resulting 

pavement deflection. 

DROP HEIGHT

MASS

SPRING CONSTANT

Figure 61. Falling Weight Deflectometer. 

METHODOLOGY 

Data Collection 

The FWD was specified in the contract to test the experimental pavement sections in Nevada, 

Delaware, California, and New Mexico in an effort to detect ASR. The treatment types, number 

of slabs per section, and section lengths were variable between the four test sites. Detailed 

information regarding treatments and test site layout is contained in the previous sections of this 

report. A brief summary of general cross section information for each site is shown in table 47. 
82 

Table 47. General cross section information. 

Site Joint Spacing, 

ft 

Mean Slab 

Thickness1, 

inches 

Base 

Type 

Base 

Thickness, 

inches 

Shoulder 

Type 

Nevada 12-13-19-18 8.0 CTB 6.0 PCC 

Delaware 40 8.0 CTB 6.0 Curb and 

Gutter 

California 12-13-19-18 8.25 CTB 4.0 AC 

New Mexico 18 8.8 CTB 6.0 Curb and 

Gutter 

1 The actual slab thicknesses varied from section to section within each site. 

1 m = 3.28 ft 

1 inch = 2.54 cm 

For each of the concrete slabs located at each test site, FWD testing was conducted at the center 

of slab, edge of slab, and in the right wheelpath at the joint. At each test point, at least one drop 

at each of three load levels—40.03, 53.38, and 71.17 kilonewtons (kN) (9, 12, and 16 kips)—was 

made. Figure 62 provides an illustration of the testing locations within each slab. Except where 

otherwise stated, the data was collected with the following sensor and load configuration for the 

slab center and joint tests: 

• Mid-Slab or Basin Test—sensors were placed at (0, 0), (0, 8), (0, 12), (0, 24), (0, 36), (0, 48), 

and (0, 60) for the center of slab test (or basin test). In this scheme, the coordinates (0, 0) 

represent sensor placement at center of the FWD load plate, (0, 8) represent sensor placement 

20.32 cm (8 inches) from the center of the load plate, and so on. The load itself is placed at 

the geometric center of the slab for this test. 

• Joint Test—deflection data was collected with the FWD load placed both on the approach 

(position 2 in figure 62) and the leave side (position 3 in figure 62). In both cases, data was 

collected with sensors placed at the locations identical to those noted above for the mid-slab 

test along with two additional sensors placed at (0, -12) and (12, 0) positions. 
83 

1

3

)

2

5

Traffic Direction

2 = Joint test location (approach side)

1 = Slab center test location

3 = Joint test location (leave side)

5 = Slab edge test location

1

3

)

2

5

Traffic Direction

2 = Joint test location (approach side)

1 = Slab center test location

3 = Joint test location (leave side)

5 = Slab edge test location

Figure 62. Illustration of testing locations. 

FWD testing was conducted on all sites in all 5 years of the performance monitoring period—

1994 through 1998. The testing was generally conducted between the months of October and 

December of each year. Weather-related problems (rain and snow) prevented the collection of 

FWD data other than the center slab deflections in the year 1996 for the California and Nevada 

sites. 

Data Assembly 

Before analyzing any of the deflection data collected, the data were normalized to a 4,086-kg 

load to account for slight variations in the actual load applied by the FWD. This normalization 

process was done using standard linear extrapolation techniques and is a routine operation. 

Further, to make valid performance comparisons on a year-to-year basis, it was necessary to 

ensure that the testing was done at approximately the same locations within each site. This was 

an important step in establishing the analysis database. Comparisons of the raw FWD data from 

each year and each site were made to ensure that test points were indeed collected in the same 

location. In a few cases, additional test points were discovered in a given year that did not have 

corresponding test points in the other years. Such data was not considered in further analysis; 

however, the data was retained in the final deflection database. 

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 

The elastic modulus of the concrete, EPCC, and the joint deflection load transfer efficiency were 

selected as the primary indicators of the performance of the pavement sections considered in this 

study. The EPCC values were obtained from the FWD data collected at the center slab location 

through a process known as backcalculation, whereas the joint load transfer efficiencies (LTE) 

were obtained from the data collected at the joint by taking a ratio (expressed as a percentage) of 

the deflections on the unloaded and loaded slabs. Data obtained by placing the load in position 3 

in figure 62 was used to estimate the LTE. Other parameters that were also studied include the 

maximum deflection, Do, obtained from the basin test and the joint test locations. The deflection 

response was analyzed since it is a direct indicator of performance and is not subjected to process 
84 

errors unlike the backcalculated EPCC values. Further, the modulus of subgrade reaction, k, 

determined from the backcalculation process was also analyzed because this has a big impact on 

the backcalculated pavement layer modulus values and the deflection responses. 

The backcalculation routine employed in this study is outlined in the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Design Supplement (AASHTO, 1998) 

as well as in the research report LTPP Data Analysis.

(1) Another backcalculation routine known 

as the “best fit” method was also considered initially. This method has been developed recently 

and is based on minimization of error between the predicted and measured deflections. One 

advantage of this method over the AASHTO method is that it is far less sensitive to irregularities 

in the deflection profile. However, preliminary comparisons of these two methods did not reveal 

any significant differences. Therefore, the AASHTO method was retained for further analysis. 

Unlike many iterative methods, the AASHTO method is based on closed-form solutions. The 

method models the pavement system as a rigid plate resting on a dense-liquid foundation. Based 

on the deflection data from the seven FWD sensors, the routine backcalculates the composite 

elastic modulus for combinations of all bound layers above the subgrade and the subgrade 

modulus of reaction (k-value). Once the composite modulus is known, it can be separated into 

component layer moduli based on the pavement layer types and thicknesses. The backcalculated 

k-value, unlike the moduli of the overlying pavement layers, is independent of the overlying 

pavement structure and is not susceptible to process errors arising from assuming uniform layer 

thicknesses along a given section. 

As stated above, the primary parameter of interest derived from the FWD basin test data was the 

PCC elastic modulus, EPCC. Monitoring EPCC over time gives an indication of the structural 

integrity of the concrete within a given section. If a slab shows extensive map cracking due to 

ASR, as was the case with most of the sections considered in this study, it is hoped that it will be 

reflected in its backcalculated EPCC. Further, as the ASR progresses with time, the EPCC is 

expected to drop due to increased map cracking. The existence of these correlations between 

EPCC and the total area affected by map cracking (determined from distress surveys) were 

investigated in this study. A correlation between maximum deflection, Do, at the slab center and 

the area affected by map cracking was also investigated to evaluate the FWD’s ability to pick up 

on ASR-related distress. Another parameter that was carefully analyzed was the joint load 

transfer. Most materials-durability problems such as ASR manifest themselves in their most 

severe forms around the transverse joints and cracks of the pavement. This, in turn, 

proportionately reduces the LTE of the joint. Therefore, by observing the changes in the joint 

LTE values over time, an indirect measure of the structural integrity of the pavement can be 

obtained. It was hoped that a correlation could be developed between LTE and joint distress data. 

Further, the joint spalling can be expected to be more severe on the leave side of the slab. 

Therefore, the maximum leave slab deflection, Do, from the joint test was also evaluated. 

FWD DATA ANALYSIS FOR THE NEVADA SITE 

The Nevada test site had a 20.3-cm PCC pavement resting on a 15.2-cm cement-treated base, and 

7.6-cm granular subbase. The joints were undoweled and skewed, and the joint spacing had a 

repeating pattern (see table 47). The site was treated with four different types of materials and 

had three control sections with no treatment. Some of the treatments were repeated along the site 
85 

to yield a total of 11 test sections. Figure 2 presents the layout of the site with the different 

sections and their respective acronyms identified. 

The FWD testing within this site contained a minimum of four test points per treatment with 

some treatment sections containing as many as six test points. An exception to this is the 1998 

data, which contained only one test point for the SA1 section, two test points for the C2 section, 

and three test points for the S1 section. The wheelpath joint data was collected with the 

following sensor configuration: (0, -12) (0, 0) (0, 12) (0, 18) (0, 24) (0, 36) (0, 60). The center 

slab data and the wheelpath data were analyzed, and their results are discussed below. 

Subgrade k-value 

A plot of the static k-value determined for the Nevada site for years 1994 through 1997 from the 

basin test data is shown in figure 63. Note that the k-value reported is the composite value, which 

takes into account both the existing subgrade and the 7.6-cm granular subbase layer. Further, the 

values reported in the plot are static k-values obtained by multiplying the backcalculated value 

by 0.5. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Station Location, ft

Static k-value, psi

94

95

96

97

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 

1 m = 3.28 ft 

Figure 63. Static k-values for Nevada test section. 

It can be noted from figure 63 that the subgrade k-value continually changes from one end of the 

site to the other. For example, the mean k-values of the C2, L2, S2, and M2 sections are 

approximately at the same level and are lower than the mean k-values for the SA1 and LO1 

sections. Further, there does not seem to be a clear time-series trend to the subgrade values 

between the various years of testing. The k-value ranges from 517 kPa to about 1,724 kPa (75 psi 
86 

to about 250 psi) if the entire site is taken into consideration. This could potentially cause 

significant differences in the pavement responses along the test section. 

Do (Center Slab) 

In figure 64, the variation of the maximum pavement deflection, Do, measured from the basin 

test, was plotted for the various treatment sections. Each year in which the data was collected 

was plotted as a separate series. It can be seen from the figure that Do varies greatly from section 

to section and from year to year. Comparing figures 63 and 64, the main cause of variation 

between the sections appears to be due to differences in subgrade support. For example, it can be 

noted from figure 63 the static k-value for the SA1 and LO1 treatment sections have the highest 

value for subgrade support. Thus, it is not surprising that these sections have the lowest 

deflection. However, what is unexpected is that the average deflection for each section appears to 

be decreasing slightly from year to year. Thus, the Do parameter does not appear to have any 

correlation with the observed map cracking, which was noted to be increasing with time. 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Station

Maximum Deflection (Do)

94

95

96

97

C3 L S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 64. Nevada test site—Do from center slab. 

EPCC (Center Slab) 

Figure 65 presents the section-to-section and year-to-year variation of backcalculated EPCC for 

the Nevada site. Unlike the center slab Do data, the backcalculated EPCC data shown in the figure 

is relatively consistent between the sections throughout the site. Because the k-value is accounted 

for in the backcalculation process, the difference in subgrade support conditions does not cause 

the large section-to-section variability seen with the Do parameter. Further, unlike what was 

found from laboratory modulus testing, no significant difference was noted in the modulus 

values between sections located on the east end (C1, C2, L1, M1, and S1) and west end (C3, L2, 

M2, S2) of the test site. However, the times series trends show that the average EPCC for each 
87 

section increases slightly with time. This trend is contrary to what was expected, since the 

increase in map cracking over time should result in a lower EPCC. 

0.0

2,000,000.0

4,000,000.0

6,000,000.0

8,000,000.0

10,000,000.0

12,000,000.0

14,000,000.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Station

Backcalculated Concrete Modulus (Epcc)

94

95

96

97

C3 L2 S2M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 65. Nevada test site—EPCC from center slab. 

Note that in figure 65, the values of EPCC range from 27,579 to 55,158 megapascals (mPa) (4 to 8 

million psi). These numbers are higher than the previously reported laboratory values and also 

are relatively high for a pavement showing medium-to-high severity map cracking. However, it 

should be kept in mind that the backcalculated moduli do not necessarily agree with laboratory 

values since the loading rates and test conditions are quite different. Further, in backcalculating 

the pavement layer moduli, constant pavement and base layer thicknesses were assumed for the 

pavement layer—an assumption seldom realized in the field due to construction variability. 

However, despite these discrepancies, the higher EPCC values should not be of concern since only 

the relative change of modulus along the project and between the various testing instances is 

being evaluated. 

Do (Joint—Leave Side) 

The Do data collected on the leave side of the joint, shown in figure 66, remained relatively 

consistent throughout the 5-year period. Some variation was identified between the years, but Do

was increasing in some years and decreasing in others. The variation in Do appears to be 

temperature-related rather than ASR-related. No trend of increasing Do with time was observed, 

belying expectations. Thus, this parameter did not correlate with the observed joint distress data, 

which was increasing with time. However, as expected, the mean Do values for each treatment 

section were relatively greater than those at the mid-slab location. 
88 

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Station

Maximum Deflection (Do)

94

95

97

98

C3 L2 S2 M2 SA1 LO1 C2 S1 L1 C1 M1

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 66. Nevada test site—Do from leave side; 

deflection LTE (wheelpath). 

The average joint load transfer data for each treatment section is plotted in figure 67 for each 

year in which testing was conducted. The LTE values do not show a downward trend 

corresponding to the increased joint distress, as was noted in figure 10. LTE values range from 

approximately 30 to 88 percent with a significant amount of the data above 50 percent. The 

higher LTE values are inconsistent with a deteriorated, undoweled joint. A careful examination 

of the data revealed that the temperature at the time of testing was major confounding factor 

affecting the LTE values computed and can be used to explain some of the inconsistent and 

highly variable results. The average temperatures at the time of FWD testing for each treatment 

section are presented in figure 68. Ideally, the pavement temperature should be relatively 

constant for the entire data collection effort to make valid comparisons. 

However, this condition seldom is realized in the field. It can be noted from figure 68 that the 

temperature varied from section-to-section during each visit (with some years, such as 1994, 

having a higher fluctuation than the others) as well as between visits. Comparing the temperature 

at the time of testing with the deflection LTE along the project length, it can be observed that the 

higher LTE values correspond to the higher test temperatures and vice versa. This is expected 

since the joints lock up at the higher test temperatures and produce higher load transfer values. 

Further, the fluctuation of the LTE values for each section seem to correlate more with the 

temperature at testing than any change in the real condition of the pavement. 
89 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

C1 C2 C3 L1 L2 LO1 M1 M2 S1 S2 SA1

Section

Mean LTE, percent

1994 1995 1997 1998

Figure 67. Average LTE values for the various treatment sections for the Nevada site. 

oC = (oF-32)/1.8 

Figure 68. Average temperatures at time of joint testing for the Nevada site. 

FWD DATA ANALYSIS FOR THE DELAWARE SITE 

The test section in Newark, DE, was a relatively short section with a total project length of 

approximately 109.8 m. Only one type of treatment (lithium hydroxide—LIOH) was applied to 

this site to mitigate the ASR, and its performance was compared with side-by-side control 

sections. In all, there were four treatment sections (T1 through T4) and five control sections (C1 

through C5). A description of the test section layout and the differential drainage conditions was 

presented in earlier sections of this report. 
90 

All of the Delaware data, with the exception of data from 1995, was collected using the standard 

sensor spacing described in the introduction. The 1995 data was also collected with the standard 

sensor spacing with the exception that the (12, 0) side sensor was not used. The Delaware testing 

locations consisted of one center slab and one leave side LTE test point per treatment in each 

year. An exception to this was that the C2 and C3 sections for LTE locations were not tested in 

1995. Also, the LTE test points for the C5 section could not be collected in 1998. The various 

conclusions drawn from analyzing this data are presented below. 

Subgrade k-value 

The variation of the subgrade support along the project was analyzed as a first step. Figure 69 

presents a plot of the static subgrade k-value for the various sections. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Station

Static k-value

94

95

96

97

98

C1 T1 T2 C2 C3 C4 T3 T4 C5

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 69. Static k-values for the Delaware site. 

The static k-values were derived from the dynamic values obtained from backcalculation by 

multiplying the latter by a factor of 0.5. Note that the layout of the sections in the figure is the 

exact sequential order in which they are arranged in the field. It can be observed from the figure 

that the site can be divided into two groups based on the spatial variability of the k-values. The 

group with sections C1, T1, T2, and C2 has a lower mean k-value than the group with sections 

C3, C4, T3, T4, and C5. Also, there is some variability in the data on a year-to-year basis within 

each section. Overall, the k-values ranged from 414 to 1,103 kPa/2.54 cm (60 to 160 psi/inch). 

Do (Center Slab) 

The variation of the maximum pavement deflection, Do, measured from the center slab test is 

plotted in figure 70 for the various treatment sections. Section-by-section analysis of the data 

revealed that the C2, T1, T2, and C2 sections have a substantially higher Do than the other test 

sections. This result does correspond to the observed distress data, which also showed higher 

level of map cracking in these areas. This can be explained by the drainage and subgrade 
91 

conditions. As described in the visual distress portion of this report, the first few sections of the 

Delaware test site were located in the low portion of a sag vertical curve and thus were exposed 

to more water during the wet months. This higher exposure could have weakened the pavement 

layers and increased the potential for materials-related distresses, including ASR. Further, as 

noted in figure 69, static mean k-value for this group of sections is lower than that for the 

remaining sections. This could be due to poor drainage or soil conditions. Regardless of the 

cause, the lower k-values could also have led to poorer structural performance. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Station

Maximum Deflection (Do)

94

95

96

97

98

C1 T1 T2 C2 C3 C4 T3 T4 C5

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 70. Delaware test site—Do from center slab test. 

It can be noted from figure 70 that Do varies slightly from year to year. When each section was 

analyzed individually on a year-to-year basis, Do remained relatively constant for most sections, 

with some sections showing a slight downward trend. This result is contrary to the observed 

distress data, which shows map cracking is increasing with time. Variations in layer thicknesses, 

which were assumed to be constant in the backcalculation procedure, and variations in subgrade 

support conditions are likely responsible for this apparent discrepancy. 

Backcalculated Concrete Modulus, EPCC 

Figure 71 shows the variation of the EPCC along the section. Once again, there is a clear 

distinction in the modulus values of sections C1, T1, T2, and C2 compared to the remaining 

sections. The modulus values for these sections are lower and, as explained before for the Do

data, are perhaps influenced by the map cracking prevalent in these sections. A similar trend was 

observed from the laboratory tested modulus values. However, the absolute magnitudes of the 

backcalculated moduli are far greater than their laboratory counterparts. 

An examination of the time series data reveals that, similar to the Do pavement response, the 

backcalculated EPCC remained relatively constant with time. A few sections showed a slight 

upward trend with time. Based on these results, the EPCC parameter is not able to pick up on the 

observed data, which shows map cracking to be increasing with time. Thus, map cracking is not 

affecting the apparent structural capacity of the pavement, or more likely, the effects of slight 
92 

variations in layer thickness and subgrade support conditions are interfering with the FWD’s 

ability to distinguish between the different levels of map cracking observed in this section. 

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Station

Backcalculated Concrete Modulus (Epcc)

94

95

96

97

98

C1 T1 T2 C2 C3 C4 T3 T4 C5

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 71. Delaware test site—EPCC from center slab. 

Do (Joint—Leave Side) 

Figure 72 presents the variation of the maximum deflection data collected at the joints along the 

Delaware site. The data in the figure suggests that Do did show a slight increasing trend with 

time from 1994 through 1997. However, the measured Do dropped sharply in 1998, and overall 

the leave side Do response did not reveal a difference between the treated and the non-treated 

sections. For the Delaware test site, both the FWD data and the observed distress data indicated 

that the drainage differences between the sections has a far greater influence on pavement 

performance than the treatment type. 

Of the four pavement response parameters analyzed, Do on the leave side of the joint showed the 

best correlation with the observed joint distress data. A statistical analysis consisting of a Duncan 

grouping was performed on this data. Because the Delaware site contained only one test point 

per section, the data from all years was grouped together. The Duncan grouping confirmed that 

the Do parameter mirrored the observed joint distress data. The observed data showed that 

sections in the poor drainage areas of the site exhibited the highest levels of joint distress. 

Likewise, the Duncan grouping showed that maximum mean deflection for treatment sections 

C1, T1, and T2 were higher than and statistically different from the maximum mean deflections 

in sections C4, C5, T3, and T4. The results of the Duncan grouping are shown in table 48. 
93 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Station

Maximum Deflection (Do)

94

95

96

97

98

C1 T1 T2 C2 C3 C4 T3 T4 C5

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 72. Delaware test site—Do from leave side. 

Table 48. Results of Delaware Duncan grouping. 

Treatment Mean Leave Side Do Duncan Grouping 

T1 7.24 A 

T2 7.16 A 

C1 6.18 A, B 

T4 5.44 C, B 

C5 4.92 C, B 

T3 4.70 C 

C4 4.64 C 

LTE (Joint) 

The variation of the LTE values along the project is presented in figure 73. The LTE data is 

presented both on a yearly and treatment section basis. In both cases, the calculated LTE values 

remained relatively constant. The magnitudes of the LTE values were also in the high range 

(between 70 and 90). This is not a totally unexpected finding since most of the joint deterioration 

(spalling) observed was of low severity. It is possible that the low severity spalling did not cause 

deterioration to an extent that would destroy the LTE at the joints. Further, unlike the Nevada 

section, temperature was not a confounding variable. Figure 74 presents the average testing 

temperature for each year in which the survey was performed. It can be observed from the figure 

that the temperature was fairly consistent between visits, as well as from the first to the last 

section during each visit. 
94 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Station

Load Tranfer Efficiency

94

95

96

97

98

C1 T1 T2 C2 C3 C4 T3 T4 C5

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 73. Delaware test site—LTE. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

C1 C4 C5 T1 T2 T3 T4

Section

Mean surface temperature, oF

1994 1996 1997 1998

oC = (oF-32)/1.8 

Figure 74. Average temperatures at time of 

joint testing for the Delaware site. 

The test temperatures in all the years were below 15.56 oC, reducing the possibility of the joint 

lockup. 
95 

FWD DATA ANALYSIS FOR THE CALIFORNIA SITE 

As noted earlier in the report, the California site had two experimental sites. One of the sites was 

an overhead structure, and the other was a conventional highway pavement. The pavement test 

sections were constructed in the early 1970s and had undergone an ASR mitigating treatment in 

the form of a methacrylate coating. The site consists of three sections coated with methacrylate 

(M1, M2, and M3) and three control sections (C1, C2, and C3). Figure 38 presented details of the 

section layout. FWD testing was performed on sections C1, M1, and M2, which are located in 

the passing lane. The treatment section M2 received an additional coating of the methacrylate in 

1995. As noted in table 47, the sections consist of a 21.0-cm PCC layer resting on a 10.2-cm 

cement-treated base. 

The testing locations contained a minimum of nine test points in the control section and at least 

eight test points in each of the methacrylate treated sections. Some years contained additional 

test points in various locations. For data analysis purposes, the data collected on 2/28/95 was 

designated as 1994 data. Center slab data was analyzed for each of the years 1994 through 1998. 

Joint test data was analyzed for 1994, 1997, and 1998. The 1995 joint data was not included in 

the analysis because only the approach side of the joint was tested in 1995. However, this 

omission is not expected to pose any significant problems in evaluating the performance of the 

test sections. The 1996 joint data could not be collected due to weather-related problems, as 

noted earlier. 

Subgrade k-value 

The variation of the subgrade support along the project was analyzed as a first step. Figure 75 

presents a plot of the static subgrade k-value for the various sections. It can be observed from the 

figure that the control section C1 has a higher k-values on an average compared to the 

methacrylate sections M1 and M2. The mean k-value of section C1 is approximately 

1034 kPa/2.54 cm (150 psi/inch) with a range of 689 to 1,379 kPa (100 to 200 psi), whereas the 

mean k-value for treatment sections M1 and M2 is approximately 517 kPa (75 psi) with a range 

of 345 to 689 kPa/25.4 cm (50 to 100 psi/inch). Further, the variability in the k-value on a yearto-year basis is higher for the treatment section C1 than for M1 and M2. These observations will 

likely assume significance in evaluating the FWD data. 

Do (Center Slab) 

Figure 76 shows a plot of the variation of the maximum mid-slab deflection, Do, along the 

project length. As expected, the control section, which had a lower subgrade support value, also 

had higher average deflections than treatment sections M1 and M2. Also, the Do varies greatly 

from year to year. Because of this variation, no clear trend of increasing or decreasing deflection 

in relation to time could be identified. 
96 

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Station

Static k-value

94

95

96

97

98

Control M ethacrylate, 1 coat M ethacrylate, 2 

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 75. Static k-value for California test section. 

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 76. California test site—Do from center slab. 

Rather, Do remains relatively constant over the 5-year testing period, and because of this, no 

correlation between center slab deflection and map cracking could be developed. 
97 

Backcalculated Concrete Modulus, EPCC

The backcalculated concrete modulus is plotted against station location in figure 77. Similar 

conclusions can be drawn from this figure as from the Do data. The mean EPCC values are 

relatively consistent between the treatment sections and over time. There appear to be some 

spurious deflections in the dataset that result in unrealistic numbers for the EPCC. But if these 

points are discounted, the EPCC for all the sections range from 27,579 to 55,158 mPa (4 to 8 

million psi), which is still relatively high for an old pavement section showing signs of ASR. It 

was noted from coring data that the thickness of the pavement sections varied along the project 

length, with some sections substantially thicker than the 21 cm adopted in backcalculation. This 

could be a plausible explanation for the higher EPCC values. 

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Station, ft

Backcalculated PCC Modulus, psi

94

95

96

97

98

Control Methacrylate, 1 coat Methacrylate, 2 

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 

1 m = 3.28 ft 

Figure 77. California test site—EPCC from center slab. 

This discrepancy in the magnitudes of modulus values, nevertheless, does not diminish the value 

of the data presented since only relative trends were being examined here in an effort to correlate 

EPCC with the amount of map cracking. Based on the data presented there does not appear to be a 

consistent time-series trend to the modulus values. It was expected that the modulus values will 

drop with time corresponding to the proportional increase in map cracking. It may be that, just as 

with Do at the mid-slab location, the backcalculated moduli are not sensitive to the map cracking 

since most of the distress at mid-slab was at low severity. 

Do (Joint—Leave Side) 

An analysis of the maximum joint deflection data shown in figure 78 showed that the Do values 

have a slight increasing trend over time. However, the differences were relatively slight and are 
98 

not proportional to the increase in the amount of observed joint distress data. Overall, the levels 

of maximum joint deflection were about double the maximum interior deflection (mid-slab 

values), which is as expected. An examination of the average values for each section revealed 

that the methacrylate 1 section had the highest deflection, followed by the control and the 

methacrylate 2 sections. It is difficult to postulate what the expected joint deflection over time is 

expected on jointed pavement having ASR distress. In jointed pavements, without dowels, joint 

deflection and curling can be large. As ASR develops, the concrete expands reducing joint 

openings and increasing aggregate interlock across the joint. Joint curling is essentially 

eliminated and the ride (smoothness) is improved. 

As ASR deterioration continues, spalling and loss of integrity at the joints occurs. However, even 

though the concrete is disintegrating, the joints remain very tight. 

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 78. California test site—Do from leave side. 

LTE (Joint)

The variation of the LTE along the project is shown in figure 79. Although the load transfer 

efficiencies are relatively high, the LTE has the best correlation with the observed joint distress 

data. The average values for each section decrease substantially from 1994 through 1997. There 

is a slight increase in the LTE from 1997 to 1998 in the methacrylate 1 and control sections, but 

this is expected given the temperature at the time of testing. For these sections, the test 

temperature in 1998 was approximately 10 degrees higher than in 1997. For the methacrylate 2 

section, the 1997 and 1998 test temperatures were approximately equal, and the LTE continued 

to decrease. Ranking the average LTE for each section shows the expected correlation with the 

joint distress data. The methacrylate 2 section has the highest average LTE, followed by the 

methacrylate 1 section, followed by the control section. A statistical analysis was performed to 
99 

determine if the difference in LTE between the treatment types was significantly different. This 

analysis consisted of a Duncan grouping at an alpha level of 0.05. This analysis confirmed that 

the LTE for the methacrylate-treated sections was significantly higher than the LTE for the 

control section. The results of the Duncan grouping are shown in table 49. 

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 79. California test site—LTE. 

Table 49. Statistical analysis of California LTE.

1994 

Treatment Mean LTE Duncan Grouping 

Methacrylate, 2 84.3 A 

Methacrylate, 1 80.0 A 

Control 63.9 B 

1997 

Treatment Mean LTE Duncan Grouping 

Methacrylate, 2 73.0 A 

Methacrylate, 1 69.5 A 

Control 52.0 B 

1998 

Treatment Mean LTE Duncan Grouping 

Methacrylate, 1 73.3 A 

Methacrylate, 2 71.3 A 

Control 61.5 B 
100 

FWD DATA ANALYSIS FOR THE NEW MEXICO SITE 

The New Mexico test pavement was built specifically to support SHRP ASR research. Details 

regarding the section layout and treatment types were explained in earlier sections. The 

pavement is 20.3 cm thick with a 15.2-cm cement-treated base layer. Two different aggregate 

sources were used in the construction of the various test sections. Class C and F fly ash and 

lithium hydroxide were the main ASR mitigating treatments. Side-by-side control sections were 

also provided for comparison. In all, 11 treatment sections were available for comparison. The 

sections are numbered from 1 through 11 as shown in figure 55. 

The New Mexico test locations for the center slab testing consisted of two test points per 

treatment, except for section 10, which contained only one test point. The test locations for the 

LTE testing consisted of two test points per treatment with the exception of sections 8, 9, and 10. 

Sections 8 and 10 contained one test point in each year, and section 9 contained three test points 

in each year. All data was collected using the standard sensor spacing described earlier.

Subgrade k-value 

A plot of the variation of the backcalculated subgrade support value along the project is 

presented in figure 80 for each year the data was collected. The subgrade support value is 

relatively constant within each visit and between visits for the years 1995, 1997, and 1998. The 

mean k-value for the various sections based on this data is 1,379 kPa/2.54 cm (200 psi/inch). The 

k-value is quite variable in 1994 and 1996, with the lowest k-values being recorded in the former 

year. The type of subgrade soils present at the site location and the saturation state of the soils 

during the time at which the FWD testing was conducted could likely explain these findings. For 

example, an intense rainfall event a few days prior to the testing in combination with a moisturesensitive subgrade soil and poor drainage conditions could lead to a weak subgrade support 

condition. However, actual occurrence of this event could not be ascertained from the data 

collected. 

Do (Center Slab) 

In figure 81, the project variation of Do is presented for the multiple years in which data was 

collected. From this figure it can be seen that Do varies greatly, especially for the 1994 data. The 

Do values follow the expected trends based on the subgrade support conditions shown in figure 

80. It seems likely that saturated subgrade conditions were present during the 1994 data 

collection. This would explain the substantially higher Do values obtained for that year. 

An examination of the data on a section-by-section basis and on a year-to-year basis did not 

indicate any clear trend regarding Do. There does not appear to be any apparent correlation 

between Do and map cracking for this section. Recall that map cracking has been reported to 

increase in all sections between 1994 and 1998, with the exception of sections 3 and 4; with the 

last 2 years registering a dramatic increase. However, most of the map cracking reported was of 

low severity, and it is assumed that the FWD test was not sensitive enough to register this 

distress. 
101 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 100 200 300 400 500

Station

Static k-value

94

95

96

97

98

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 80. Static k-value for New Mexico test. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 100 200 300 400 500

Station

Maximum Deflection (Do)

94

95

96

97

98

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 81. New Mexico test site—Do from center slab. 
102 

Backcalculated EPCC (Center Slab) 

In figure 82, the backcalculated EPCC is plotted for all the treatment sections. Similar to the Do

pavement response, the backcalculated EPCC remained relatively constant over time. Based on 

these results, the EPCC parameter is not able to corroborate the observed distress data, which 

shows map cracking to be increasing over time. Thus, the map cracking is not affecting the 

apparent structural capacity of the pavement, or more likely, the effects of slight variations in 

layer thickness and subgrade support conditions are interfering with the FWD’s ability to 

distinguish between the different levels of map cracking observed in this section. 

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

0 100 200 300 400 500

Station, ft

Backcalculated Concrete Modulus (Epcc), psi

94

95

96

97

98

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 psi = 6.89 kPa 

1 m = 3.28 ft 

Figure 82. New Mexico test site—EPCC from center slab. 

Do (Joint– Leave Side) 

Figure 83 presents the maximum pavement deflection collected from joint testing. As with the 

Do center slab data, the Do data taken from the leave side of the joint showed rather large 

variability. Overall, the data did show a slight upward trend over time corresponding to increased 

joint distress. However, this trend was not consistent, as the data was confounded by differences 

in temperatures at testing between sections during each visit. A pictorial representation of the 

average temperature at the time of FWD testing for each section is presented in figure 84. Other 

confounding factors include variations in slab thickness due to construction variability and 

changing subgrade support conditions. 
103 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 100 200 300 400 500

Station

Maximum Deflection (Do)

94

95

96

97

98

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(Station location is in feet; 1 m = 3.28 ft) 

Figure 83. New Mexico test site—Do from leave side. 

Because the Do data did at least show the expected trend of increasing with time, a statistical 

analysis was performed. This analysis revealed some differences between the treatment types; 

however, these differences appear to be more closely related to temperature and subgrade 

support conditions than to ASR-related deterioration. 

LTE (Joint) 

The variation of the LTE along the project is plotted in figure 85. An examination of the LTE 

data on both a yearly and section-by-section basis revealed that LTE remained relatively 

constant. The LTE data did not have a significant correlation with the observed joint distress 

data, and it could not be used to corroborate the benefit of the Class F fly ash treatment. A 

statistical analysis revealed that the average LTE values for each section belonged to the same 

group. Thus, no significant differences in LTE values existed between any of the treatment types. 
104 

oC = (oF-32)/1.8 

Figure 84. Temperature variation during FWD testing for the New Mexico site. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Sections

Mean LTE, percent

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Figure 85. New Mexico test site—LTE. 
105 

SUMMARY OF FWD TESTING 

Visual surveys confirmed that each of the four experiment sites were accumulating increased 

amounts of ASR-related distress over the 5-year experiment time frame. It was hoped that 

correlations could be developed which would relate pavement responses collected by the FWD 

to the observed ASR-related distresses. To assess the FWD’s ability to identify ASR related 

distress, four pavement response parameters were examined in detail: maximum deflection and 

backcalculated modulus collected from center slab tests, and Do and LTE collected from joint 

tests. It was believed that these four parameters offered the best chance to develop a meaningful 

correlation to the observed distress data. Attempts were made to correlate center slab Do and 

EPCC to the map cracking data. It was expected that Do would increase and that EPCC would 

decrease as the observed map cracking increased. 

Attempts were also made to correlate Do and LTE measured at the joints to the observed joint 

distress data. It was expected that Do would increase and that LTE would decrease in relation to 

observed increase joint distress severity. 

Based on the analysis results, no significant correlations could be developed linking the FWD 

data to the observed distresses, particularly when the distresses were of low severity. For all four 

sites, center slab Do and EPCC proved to be very poor indicators of ASR-related map cracking. In 

each of the four sites, Do and EPCC remained relatively constant over time, and differences 

between treatment sections at any given site were found to correlate with variations in subgrade 

support conditions, rather than to the observed differences in map cracking. Further complicating 

the EPCC analysis is the issue of slight variations in layer thickness. It seems apparent that the 

effects of subgrade support, temperature, and possible variation from assumed layer thickness far 

outweigh the FWD’s ability to distinguish between varying levels of map cracking. 

FWD data collected from joint tests was slightly more promising. The LTE data from the 

California site correlated well with the observed joint distress data, as did the Do data from the 

Delaware site. However, these results are far from conclusive, and overall, the majority of the 

joint data did not correlate well with the observed distress. 

107 

APPENDIX A 

(a) Control section 3 (C3)

(b) Lithium Hydroxide section 2 (L2)

Figure A1. Photographs of typical joint sections for each test section (Winnemucca, NV). 
108 

(c) Silane section 2 (S2) 

(d) Methacrylate section 2 (M2) 

Figure A1. Photographs of typical joint sections for each test section(Winnemucca, NV). 

(continued)
109 

(e) Silane #2 section 1 (SA1) 

(f) Linseed oil section 1 (LO1) 

Figure A1. Photographs of typical joint sections for each test section (Winnemucca, NV). 

(continued)
110 

(g) Control section 2 (C2) 

(h) Silane section 1 (S1)

Figure A1. Photographs of typical joint sections for each test section (Winnemucca, NV). 

(continued)
111 

(i) Lithium hydroxide section 1 (L1) 

(j) Control section 1 (C1) 

Figure A1. Photographs of typical joint sectionsfor each test section(Winnemucca, NV). 

(continued)
112 

(k) Methacrylate section 1 (M1) 

Figure A1. Photographs of typical joint sections for each test section (Winnemucca, NV). 

(continued)
113 

Petrographic Report for Winnemucca, NV, 1997 

Two sections from each of the cores were cut and lapped. These sections were then soaked 

overnight and dried, and the entire lapped surface was traversed under a stereo microscope. The 

lapped surface was divided into five or more traverses and examined at magnifications of 10 to 

30 times. All instances of cracks, alkali-silica gel, and deteriorated or reacted aggregate particles 

were counted. 

Core 97-C1-B: The core is classed as slightly to moderately distressed. The wearing surface is 

severely worn, exposing coarse and fine aggregate particles. Popouts are occasionally 

identifiable. Sixty-one cracks (chiefly microscopic) and 54 instances of alkali-silica gel were 

counted. Eight coarse and 22 fine aggregate particles were distressed or had reacted. The core is 

marginally air-entrained with an estimated air content of 5 percent. 

Core 97-C2-A: The core is classed as slightly distressed. The wearing surface is severely worn, 

exposing coarse and fine aggregate particles. Popouts are occasionally identifiable. Thirty-four 

cracks and 58 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Nine coarse and 42 fine aggregate 

particles were distressed or had reacted. The core is well air-entrained with an estimated air 

content of 6.5 percent. 

Core 97-C3-A: The core is classified as slightly distressed. The wearing surface is severely worn, 

exposing coarse and fine aggregate particles. Popouts are occasionally identifiable. Eleven 

cracks and 50 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Three coarse and 27 aggregate particles 

show evidence of distress or reaction. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 

5.5 percent. 

Core 97-L1-C: The core is classified as moderately distressed. The wearing surface is severely 

worn, exposing coarse and fine aggregate particles. Popouts are frequently identifiable. Sixtyfive cracks and 39 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. One coarse and 21 fine aggregate 

particles show evidence of distress or reaction. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air 

content of 6 percent. 

Core 97-L2-B: The core is classified as slightly distressed. The wearing surface is worn, 

exposing aggregate particles. Twenty cracks and 32 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. 

Twenty-two fine aggregate particles showed evidence of distress or reaction. The core is airentrained with an estimated air content of 6 percent. 

Core 97-LO1-B: The core is classified as moderately severely distressed. The wearing surface is 

worn, exposing numerous fine and coarse aggregate particles. Popouts are occasionally evident. 

Seventy-three cracks and 62 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Five coarse and 32 fine 

aggregate particles showed evidence of distress or reaction. The core is marginally to poorly airentrained with an estimated air content that varies between 4 and 5 percent. 

Core 97-M1-C: The core is classed as severely distressed. The wearing surface is worn, exposing 

coarse and fine aggregate particles. Popouts are occasionally evident. One hundred eighty-five 

cracks and 81 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Several of the cracks are macroscopic. 

Thirteen coarse and 42 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of distress or reaction. The core 

is poorly air-entrained with an estimated air content of 4 percent. 
114 

Core 97-M2-B: The core is classified as slightly to moderately distressed. The wearing surface is 

worn, revealing fine and occasionally coarse aggregate particles; 48 cracks and 75 instances of 

alkali-silica gel were counted. Five coarse and 27 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of 

distress or reaction. The core is poorly air-entrained with an estimated air content of 4 percent. 

Core 97-S1-C: The core is classified as moderately severely distressed. The wearing surface is 

moderately worn, exposing fine and occasionally coarse aggregate particles. Ninety-seven cracks 

and 85 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Thirteen coarse and 23 fine aggregate particles 

showed evidence of distress or reaction. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 

5.5 percent. 

Core 97-SA1-C: The core is classified as moderately distressed. The wearing surface is worn, 

and popouts over aggregate particles are present. Seventy-seven cracks and 41 instances of 

alkali-silica gel were counted. Ten coarse and 64 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of 

reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 6 percent. 

Core 97-S2-A: The core is classified as slightly distressed. The wearing surface is worn; shallow 

popouts over coarse and fine aggregate particles are frequent; 29 cracks and 40 instances of 

alkali-silica gel were counted. Fourteen coarse and 53 fine aggregate particles show evidence of 

reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 6 percent. 

Petrographic report for Winnemucca, NV, 1998 

Sections from each of the cores were cut and lapped. These sections were then soaked overnight 

and dried, and the entire lapped surface was traversed under a stereo microscope. Each lapped 

surface was divided into five or more traverse areas and examined at magnifications of 10 to 30 

times. All instances of cracks, alkali-silica gel, and deteriorated or reacted aggregate particles 

were counted. 

98-C1-2: The wearing surface appears to be a worn, mechanically ground surface. The core 

contains abundant evidence of reaction but little distress. Forty microcracks and 129 instances of 

alkali-silica gel were counted. Seventeen coarse and 115 fine aggregate particles show evidence 

of reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 7 percent. 

98-C2-1: The wearing surface is severely worn with very frequently exposed and polished 

aggregate particles. The core is severely distressed. Three large cracks, 139 microcracks, and 104 

instances of alkali-silica gel were counted; 35 coarse and 129 fine aggregate particles show 

evidence of reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 

6.5 percent. 

98-C3-2: The wearing surface is very severely worn with frequently exposed and polished 

aggregate particles. The core is severely distressed. One large crack, 72 microcracks, and 84 

instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Sixteen coarse and 134 fine aggregate particles show 

evidence of reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 

7.5 percent. 

98-LI-1: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequently exposed and polished aggregate 

particles, and three prominent but tightly closed cracks. The core is moderately to severely 
115 

distressed. One large crack, 121 microcracks, and 69 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. 

Thirty-one coarse and 81 fine aggregate particles show evidence of distress or reaction. The core 

is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 5 percent. 

98-L2-1: The wearing surface is moderately severely worn with frequent exposed and polished 

aggregate particles. The core is slightly distressed. Twenty-three microcracks and 88 instances of 

alkali-silica gel were counted. Sixteen coarse and 126 fine aggregate particles show evidence of 

reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 5 percent. 

98-LOI-2: The wearing surface is moderately to severely worn with frequently exposed and 

polished aggregate particles. The core is slightly to moderately distressed. Forty-six microcracks 

and 84 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Twenty-seven coarse and 69 fine aggregate 

particles show evidence of reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air 

content of 4.5 percent. 

98-M1-1: The wearing surface is severely worn or possibly worn and mechanically ground, with 

frequently exposed and polished aggregate particles. The core is very severely distressed. Seven 

major cracks, 196 microcracks, and 105 occurrences of alkali-silica gel were counted. Fortyseven coarse and 102 fine aggregate particles show evidence of reaction or distress. The core is 

air-entrained with an estimated air content of 5.5 percent. 

98-M2-2: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequent exposed and polished aggregate 

particles. The core is moderately distressed. Seventy-five microcracks and 73 instances of alkalisilica gel were counted. Thirty-five coarse and 65 fine aggregate particles show evidence of 

distress or reaction. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 5.5 percent. 

98-S1-2: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequent exposed aggregate particles and 

occasional popouts. The core is very severely distressed. Two major cracks, 113 microcracks, 

and 90 occurrences of alkali-silica gel were counted. Fifty-eight coarse and 173 fine aggregate 

particles show evidence of reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air 

content of 5.5 percent. 

98-S2-2: The wearing surface is worn with frequent exposed and polished aggregate particles. 

The surface appears to have been machine grooved at one time. One crack and a popout are 

apparent on the wearing surface. The core is very severely distressed. Three major and 153 

microcracks, and 116 occurrences of alkali-silica gel were counted. Forty-five coarse and 102 

fine aggregate particles showed evidence of reaction or distress. The core is poorly to marginally 

air-entrained with an estimated air content of 5 percent. 

98-SA1-2: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequent exposed aggregate particles and 

occasional popouts. The core is severely distressed. One major crack, 114 microcracks, and 78 

occurrences of alkali-silica gel were counted; 43 coarse and 156 fine aggregate particles showed 

evidence of reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 

6 percent. 
116 

Table A1. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—control section. 

Type Identification code Unit 10/18/94 12/12/95 12/5/96 10/9/97 10/28/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m - 6.5 8 9 5.5 

3L (sealed) m - 0 0 0 0 

3M m 16 8.5 12.5 12.5 18.1 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 6 6 7 7 5 

4L m 6.5 6.8 8 8 5.6 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 5 4 2 0 2 

4M m 8.8 9.7 4.8 0 3.3 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 2 4 4 

4H m 0 0 5.1 9.9 10.54 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5Al no. 0 0 0 0 0 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 5 4 3 1 0 

7L (length) m 13.6 12.8 9.2 2 0 

7M no. 1 2 2 4 0 

7M (length) m 2 2.6 3.7 11.2 0 

7H no. 0 0 1 1 6 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 2.6 3 18.9 

8a no. - 3 5 8 11 Map cracking 8a m2 - 1.2 1.5 2.02 5.9 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 1.2 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

WP-L no. - 2 - - 0 

WP-M no. - 3 - - 4 

WP-H no. - 0 - - 1 

CL-L no. - 4 - - 1 

CL-M no. - 1 - - 4 

Other 

CL-H no. - 0 - - 0 

 

Total m 16 15 20.5 21.5 23.6 

Percent L - 0 43 39 42 23 

Percent M - 100 57 61 58 77 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 11 10 11 11 11 

Total m 15.3 16.5 17.9 17.9 19.44 

Percent L 42 41 45 45 29 

Percent M 58 59 27 0 17 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H 0 0 28 55 54 

Total no. 6 6 6 6 6 

Total m 15.6 15.4 15.5 16.2 18.9 

Percent L - 87 83 59 12 0 

Percent M - 13 17 24 69 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 17 19 100 
117 

Table A2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—section L2. 

Type Identification code Unit 10/18/94 12/12/95 12/5/96 10/9/97 10/28/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 6 5 5 11.5 1 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 16 13 6.5 7 17 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 9 3.5 3.5 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 1 0 

4L m 0 0 0 1 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 3 2 1 2 1 

4M m 4.8 5.4 3.6 5.6 1.5 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 1 0 2 

4H m 0 0 2 0 5.1 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 6 4 2 2 0 

7L (length) m 9.2 7 5.6 5.6 0 

7M no. 0 2 2 2 3 

7M (length) m 0 4.7 6.1 6.1 10.8 

7H no. 0 0 2 2 3 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 5.6 5.6 10.2 

8a no. - 3 7 7 8 Map cracking 8a m2 85 0.6 3.5 3.5 4 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 1.4 0.4 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

WP-L no. - 3 - - 1 

WP-M no. - 2 - - 4 

WP-H no. - 0 - - 0 

CL-L no. - 5 - - 3 

CL-M no. - 0 - - 2 

Other 

CL-H no. - 0 - - 0 

 

Total m 22 18 20.5 22 21.5 

Percent L - 27 28 24 52 5 

Percent M - 73 72 32 32 79 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 44 16 16 

Total no 3 2 2 3 3 

Total m 4.8 5.4 5.6 6.6 6.6 

Percent L - 0 0 0 15 0 

Percent M - 100 100 64 85 23 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 36 0 77 

Total no. 6 6 6 6 6 

Total m 9.2 11.7 17.3 17.3 21 

Percent L - 100 60 32 32 0 

Percent M - 0 40 35 35 51 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 32 32 49 
118 

Table A3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—section S2. 

Type Identification code Unit 10/18/94 12/12/95 12/5/96 10/9/97 10/28/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 17 9.5 11 11.5 6.5 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 17 12.5 12.5 8 17.5 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 1 0 0 0 0 

4L m 1 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 2 2 0 0 0 

4M m 5.3 7.2 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 2 2 2 

4H m 0 0 7.2 7.2 7.2 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 6 6 6 6 6 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 6 6 3 3 1 

7L (length) m 14 9 6.1 6.4 1.8 

7M no. 0 0 2 2 1 

7M (length) m 0 0 5.6 5.6 3 

7H no. 0 0 1 1 4 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 3.6 3.6 12 

8a no. 3 4 5 9 Map cracking 8a m2 84.1 1.4 1.8 3.9 6 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0.9 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

WP-L no. - 3 - - 1 

WP-M no. - 2 - - 2 

WP-H no. - 0 - - 2 

CL-L no. - 5 - - 0 

CL-M no. - 0 - - 5 

Other 

CL-H no. - 0 - - 0 

 

Total m 34 22 23.5 19.5 24 

Percent L - 50 43 47 59 27 

Percent M - 50 57 53 41 73 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 3 2 2 2 2 

Total m 6.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 

Percent L - 16 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 84 100 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 100 100 100 

Total no. 6 6 6 6 6 

Total m 14 9 15.3 15.6 16.8 

Percent L - 100 100 40 41 11 

Percent M - 0 0 37 36 18 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 24 23 71 
119 

Table A4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—section M2. 

Type Identification code Unit 10/18/94 12/12/95 12/5/96 10/9/97 10/28/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 11 11 11 15 5 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 8 9 7 6 15.9 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 4 6.5 8 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 5 3 1 2 2 

4L m 6 5.4 1 2.5 3 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 1 3 3 3 

4M m 0 1 5.9 6.1 6.3 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 6 5 5 5 5 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 4 1 1 1 0 

7L (length) m 6.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 0 

7M no. 1 3 3 1 2 

7M (length) m 1.5 5.8 10.2 3 7.2 

7H no. 0 1 1 3 3 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 1.5 3.5 10.7 10.8 

8a no. 5 8 9 9 Map cracking 8a m2 93 2.1 3.75 5.5 7.3 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0.3 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

WP-L no. - 4 - - 1 

WP-M no. - 1 - - 4 

WP-H no. - 0 - - 0 

CL-L no. - 5 - - 5 

CL-M no. - 0 - - 0 

Other 

CL-H no. - 0 - - 0 

 

Total m 19 20 22 27.5 28.9 

Percent L - 58 55 50 55 17 

Percent M - 42 45 32 22 55 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 18 24 28 

Total no 5 4 4 5 5 

Total m 6 6.4 6.9 8.6 9.3 

Percent L - 100 84 14 29 32 

Percent M - 0 16 86 71 68 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 5 5 5 5 5 

Total m 7.7 9.1 15.5 15.5 18 

Percent L - 81 20 12 12 0 

Percent M - 19 64 66 19 40 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 16 23 69 60 
120 

Table A5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—section SA1. 

Type Identification code Unit 10/18/94 12/12/95 12/5/96 10/9/97 10/28/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 4 5.5 8 7 7.4 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 11 9.5 9.5 11 21.2 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 6 7 6 4 4 

4L m 5 9.4 7.5 4 4.5 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 2 1 2 4 3 

4M m 3 1.5 2.5 4.5 5.2 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 1 1 

4H m 0 0 0 1.5 2.1 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 6 6 6 6 6 

5aM no. 0 2 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 5 2 1 0 0 

7L (length) m 16.2 6.1 2.5 0 0 

7M no. 1 4 4 6 5 

7M (length) m 3.8 13.6 14.4 21.6 18 

7H no. 0 0 1 0 1 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 3.6 0 3.6 

8a no. 6 8 9 10 Map cracking 8a m2 87.8 4.6 4.7 4.8 7 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 1 0.3 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - 

WP-L no. - 3 - - 0 

WP-M no. - 2 - - 5 

WP-H no. - 0 - - 0 

CL-L no. - 3 - - 0 

CL-M no. - 2 - - 5 

Other 

CL-H no. - 0 - - 0 

 

Total m 15 15 17.5 18 28.6 

Percent L - 27 37 46 39 26 

Percent M - 73 63 54 61 74 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 8 8 8 9 8 

Total m 8 10.9 10 10 11.8 

Percent L - 63 86 75 40 38 

Percent M - 38 14 25 45 44 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 15 18 

Total no. 6 6 6 6 6 

Total m 20 19.7 20.5 21.6 21.6 

Percent L - 81 31 12 0 0 

Percent M - 19 69 70 100 83 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 18 0 17 
121 

Table A6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—section LO1. 

Type Identification code Unit 10/18/94 12/12/95 12/5/96 10/9/97 10/28/98 

1L no. 1 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 15 13 15.5 8 5.5 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 1.5 4.2 4.2 12 25.1 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 2 3 3 1 1 

4L m 2 3.5 3.3 0.8 0.8 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 2 2 

4M m 0 0 0 2.7 5.1 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 6 6 6 6 6 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 5 0 0 0 0 

7L (length) m 17.7 0 0 0 0 

7M no. 1 6 2 2 1 

7M (length) m 3.8 19.8 6.2 7.2 3.6 

7H no. 0 0 4 4 5 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 14.4 14.4 18 

8a no. 8 10 13 13 Map cracking 8a m2 81 2.9 4.3 11.4 11.4 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0.4 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

WP-L no. - 1 - - 0 

WP-M no. - 4 - - 5 

WP-H no. - 0 - - 0 

CL-L no. - 3 - - 1 

CL-M no. - 2 - - 4 

Other 

CL-H no. - 0 - - 0 

 

Total m 16.5 17.2 19.7 20 30.6 

Percent L - 91 76 79 40 18 

Percent M - 9 24 21 60 82 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 2 3 3 3 3 

Total m 2 3.5 3.3 3.5 5.9 

Percent L - 100 100 100 23 14 

Percent M - 0 0 0 77 86 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 6 6 6 6 6 

Total m 21.5 19.8 20.6 21.6 21.6 

Percent L - 82 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 18 100 30 33 17 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 70 67 83 
122 

Table A7. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—control 2. 

Type Identification code Unit 10/18/94 12/12/95 12/5/96 10/9/97 10/28/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 4.5 8 10.5 8.5 12.4 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 1.5 1.5 15.5 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 3 1 1 1 1 

4L m 4 1 1.3 1.3 1.3 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 1 1 1 0 

4M m 0 3.6 3.6 3.6 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 1 

4H m 0 0 0 0 3.6 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 6 6 6 6 6 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 6 2 1 0 0 

7L (length) m 21 4.5 2.9 0 0 

7M no. 0 4 2 2 0 

7M (length) m 0 10.2 5.6 7.2 0 

7H no. 0 0 3 4 6 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 10.6 14.4 21.6 

8a no. 4 3 11 13 13 Map cracking 8a m2 3 1.5 3.4 8.8 8.9 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0.6 1 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

WP-L no. - 2 - - 0 

WP-M no. - 3 - - 3 

WP-H no. - 0 - - 2 

CL-L no. - 5 - - 0 

CL-M no. - 0 - - 5 

Other 

CL-H no. - 0 - - 0 

 

Total m 4.5 8 12 10 27.9 

Percent L - 100 100 88 85 44 

Percent M - 0 0 13 15 56 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 3 2 2 2 2 

Total m 4 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 

Percent L - 100 22 27 27 27 

Percent M - 0 78 73 73 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 73 

Total no. 6 6 6 6 6 

Total m 21 14.7 19.1 21.6 21.6 

Percent L - 100 31 15 0 0 

Percent M - 0 69 29 33 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 55 67 100 
123 

Table A8. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—section S1. 

Type Identification code Unit 10/18/94 12/12/95 12/5/96 10/9/97 10/28/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 10 12.5 13 0 7.7 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 13.5 21 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 1 2 2 2 0 

4L m 1 1.3 2.3 2.3 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 6 5 6 6 4 

4M m 6 6 6.3 6.3 5.3 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 6 6 6 6 6 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 6 0 0 0 0 

7L (length) m 21.6 0 0 0 0 

7M no. 0 5 1 1 0 

7M (length) m 0 14.7 2.5 3.6 0 

7H no. 0 1 5 5 6 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 3.6 18 18 21.6 

8a no. 7 14 15 16 18 Map cracking 8a m2 6 11.8 7.8 15.2 16.1 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0.8 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

WP-L no. - 0 - - 0 

WP-M no. - 5 - - 3 

WP-H no. - 0 - - 2 

CL-L no. - 3 - - 0 

CL-M no. - 2 - - 5 

Other 

CL-H no. - 0 - - 0 

 

Total m 10 12.5 13 13.5 28.7 

Percent L - 100 100 100 0 27 

Percent M - 0 0 0 100 73 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 7 7 8 8 4 

Total m 7 7.3 8.6 8.6 5.3 

Percent L - 14 18 27 27 0 

Percent M - 86 82 73 73 100 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 6 6 6 6 6 

Total m 21.6 18.3 20.5 21.6 21.6 

Percent L - 100 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 80 12 17 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 20 88 83 100 
124 

Table A9. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—section L1. 

Type Identification code Unit 10/18/94 12/12/95 12/5/96 10/9/97 10/28/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

L m 5.5 7.8 10 3.5 10.7 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 1.5 1.5 7 20 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 7 5 5 4 4 

4L m 8 6 6.6 5 4.7 

4L (sealed) m 0 2 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 2.5 2 3 4 

4M m 0 0 3.5 5.1 7.5 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 6 6 6 6 6 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 6 0 0 0 0 

7L (length) m 21.6 0 0 0 0 

7M no. 0 5 3 3 0 

7M (length) m 0 17.7 10.6 10.8 0 

7H no. 0 1 3 3 6 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 3.6 9.2 10.8 21.6 

8a no. 3 6 9 9 13 Map cracking 8a m2 2 3.5 4.5 4.2 6.2 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 1 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

WP-L no. - 0 - - 0 

WP-M no. - 5 - - 5 

WP-H no. - 0 - - 0 

CL-L no. - 4 - - 2 

CL-M no. - 1 - - 3 

Other 

CL-H no. - 0 - - 0 

 

Total m 5.5 9.3 11.5 10.5 30.7 

Percent L - 100 84 87 33 35 

Percent M - 0 16 13 67 65 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 7 7.5 7 7 8 

Total m 8 6 10.1 10.1 12.2 

Percent L - 100 100 65 50 39 

Percent M - 0 0 35 50 61 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 6 6 6 6 6 

Total m 21.6 21.3 19.8 21.6 21.6 

Percent L - 100 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 83 54 50 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 17 46 50 100 
125 

Table A10. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—control section 1. 

Type Identification code Unit 10/18/94 12/12/95 12/5/96 10/9/97 10/28/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 14 19 11 4 13 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 3 10 18.8 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 5 4 3 3 3 

4L m 2.9 3.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 2 2 1 1 1 

4M m 7.3 7.2 1 1 1.5 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 2 2 2 

4H m 0 0 7.2 7.2 7.3 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 6 0 0 0 0 

7L (length) m 21.2 0 0 0 0 

7M no. 0 6 6 6 1 

7M (length) m 0 19.2 19.8 21.6 3.6 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 5 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 18 

8a no. 5 3 4 9 11 Map cracking 8a m2 4 1 1.5 4.9 6 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 1 0.8 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

WP-L no. - 0 - - 0 

WP-M no. - 5 - - 4 

WP-H no. - 0 - - 1 

CL-L no. - 4 - - 1 

CL-M no. - 1 - - 4 

Other 

CL-H no. - 0 - - 0 

 

Total m 14 19 14.8 14.8 31.8 

Percent L - 100 100 74 27 41 

Percent M - 0 0 20 68 59 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 5 5 0 

Total no 7 6 6 6 6 

Total m 10.2 10.7 10.9 10.9 11.5 

Percent L - 28 33 25 25 23 

Percent M - 72 67 9 9 13 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 66 66 63 

Total no. 6 6 6 6 6 

Total m 21.2 19.2 19.8 21.6 21.6 

Percent L - 100 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 100 100 100 17 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 83 
126 

Table A11. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—section M1. 

Type Identification code Unit 10/18/94 12/12/95 12/5/96 10/9/97 10/28/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 6 13 13 4 11 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 14 24.7 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 3 1 4 2 2 

4L m 4.5 1.5 3.4 1.6 1.6 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 1 3 3 2 3 

4M m 1.5 4 4.5 3 4 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 5 5 5 5 5 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 5 3 0 0 0 

7L (length) m 17 5.5 0 0 0 

7M no. 0 1 4 3 1 

7M (length) m 0 2 10.6 10.8 3.6 

7H no. 0 1 1 2 5 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 2.7 3.5 7.2 18 

8a no. 9 12 13 15 16 Map cracking 8a m2 7.5 8.7 7.8 13.3 14.9 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0.4 0.07 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

WP-L no. - 5 - - 0 

WP-M no. - 0 - - 3 

WP-H no. - 0 - - 2 

CL-L no. - 5 - - 4 

CL-M no. - 0 - - 1 

Other 

CL-H no. - 0 - - 0 

 

Total m 6 13 13 18 35.7 

Percent L - 100 100 100 22 31 

Percent M - 0 0 0 78 69 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 4 4 7 4 5 

Total m 6 5.5 7.9 4.6 5.6 

Percent L - 75 27 43 35 29 

Percent M - 25 73 57 65 71 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 5 5 5 5 6 

Total m 17 10.2 14.1 18 21.6 

Percent L - 100 54 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 20 75 60 17 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 26 25 40 83 
127 

APPENDIX B 

Table B1. Transverse joint observations of Route 72, Newark, DE (1998) 

Joint Shoulder Lane Observations Travel Lane Observations 

Start of C1 Joint is intact and well sealed. Cracking 

perpendicular to the joint along entire 

joint. No nearby transverse cracks. 

Twenty-one cracks along joint. Spalling 

at joint with shoulder. 

Four spalls, 1 large in right wheelpath. 

All patched, but subsequent loss of 

material in center patch. More PCC 

spalling pieces. 

C1-T1 Joint intact and well sealed. 

Perpendicular cracks intercepting full 

width of the joint. Transverse cracks in 

outer 3.05 m at 0.305 m from the joint. 

Heavy spalls in 3.05 m of lane, all 

patched with asphalt. Concrete is lost in 

outer 0.61 m in two separate spalls. All 

joints spalled. AC patch 0.92 m by 3.05 

m. 

T1-T2 Joint intact and well sealed. Intersecting 

cracks perpendicular to the joint at 0.305 

m on center along the whole joint. 

Twenty-four cracks along joint. 

Heavy loss of material over 10 feet of 

joint, all patched with asphalt. Patch 

largest at joint with shoulder. AC patch 

0.61 m x 3.05 m. Also patch at shoulder 

joint 0.305 m x 3.05 m. 

T2-C2 Joint intact and well sealed. Cracks 

perpendicular to and intersecting the 

whole joint. No nearby transverse 

cracks. Twenty-one cracks along joint. 

Unpatched small (less than .305 m from 

joint) spalls over 1.83 m of joint. 

Spalling also along longitudinal 

shoulder joint. 

C2-C3 Joint intact and well sealed. Cracks 

perpendicular to and intersecting the 

joint along 0.92 m of joint. Light 

cracking over remainder of joint. 

Scattered nearby transverse cracks. 

Sixteen cracks along joint. 

Spalls over 3.05 m of joint, all patched 

with asphalt. Patch widest at 

longitudinal joint. 

C3-C4 Joint intact and well sealed. .305 m spall 

50.8 mm wide near longitudinal joint. 

Cracks perpendicular to joint stop .305 

m from joint, with cracks extending to 

joint all of joint. Light cracking, no 

staining. Seventeen cracks along joint. 

Spall along 2.44 m of joint, all patched 

with asphalt. Patch approximately 

0.305 m wide on either side of joint, 

with wider patch (0.92 m x 0.92 m) at 

longitudinal joint. Some new PCC 

spalling. 

C4-T3 Joint intact and well sealed. Very light 

perpendicular cracking along joint. No 

nearby transverse cracking. Ten cracks 

along joint. 

Right wheelpath patch over 0.92 m x 

0.305 m area, 0.61 m x 0.61 m patch in 

center with some concrete loss around 

edge of patch. Transverse crack 0.92 m 

from joint with 0.305 m x 0.305 m spall. 

T3-T4 Joint intact and well sealed. Cracking 

along joint. Eleven cracks along joint. 

Small spall 20.3 cm x 20.3 cm at 

longitudinal joint. 
128 

Table B1. Transverse joint observations of Route 72, Newark, DE (1998). (continued)

Joint Shoulder Lane Observations Travel Lane Observations 

T4-C5 Joint intact and well sealed. Very light 

perpendicular cracking at joint with 15.2 

cm corner spall in C5. All cracks narrow 

with brown staining. Fourteen cracks 

along joint. 

20.3 to 30.5-cm wide asphalt patch 

along 0.92 m of C5 section. New PCC 

spalling. 

C5-end Joint intact and well sealed. Light 

widely-spaced cracking perpendicular to 

joint and along entire joint. Thirteen 

cracks along joint. 

Small .305 m x .305 m patch near 

longitudinal joint at transverse joint. 

(a) Control section 1 (C1) 

Figure B1. Photographs of typical area of each section (Newark, DE). 
129 

(b) Test section 1 (TS1) 

(c) Test section 2 (TS2) 

Figure B1. Photographs of typical area of each section (Newark, DE). (continued)
130 

(d) Control section 2 (C2) 

(e) Control section 3 (C3) 

Figure B1. Photographs of typical area of each section (Newark, DE). (continued)
131 

(f) Control section 4 (C4) 

(g) Test section 3 (TS3) 

Figure B1. Photographs of typical area of each section (Newark, DE). (continued)
132 

(h) Test section 4 (TS4) 

(i) Control section 5 (C5) 

Figure B1. Photographs of typical area of each section (Newark, DE). (continued)

Petrographic Report for Newark, DE, 1997 

Sections from each of the cores were cut and lapped. These sections were then soaked overnight, 

dried, and the entire lapped surface was traversed under a stereo microscope. The lapped surface 

was divided into five or more traverses and examined at magnifications of 10 to 30 times. All 

instances of cracks, alkali-silica gel, and deteriorated or reacted aggregate particles were 

counted. 

Core 97C1A: the core is poorly and nonuniformly air-entrained, with an estimated air content of 

4.5 percent. Distress to the wearing surface appears limited to small popouts over fine aggregate 

particles. The core is moderately severely distressed. One major crack bisects the core into top 

and bottom halves. Additionally, 40 microcracks and 27 instances of alkali-silica gel were 
133 

counted. Three coarse aggregate particles appear to have reacted slightly; 24 fine aggregate 

particles were distressed or had reacted. 

Core 97C5A: the core is poorly and nonuniformly air-entrained with an estimated air content of 

5 percent. Distress to the wearing surface appears limited to small popouts over fine aggregate 

particles. The core is moderately severely distressed. One major crack bisects the core into top 

and bottom halves. Thirty-four other microcracks were counted, and 31 occurrences of alkalisilica gel. Three coarse aggregate particles appear to have reacted slightly. Twenty-seven fine 

aggregate particles are distressed or have reacted. 

Core 97T51A: the core is poorly and nonuniformly air-entrained with an estimated air content of 

4 percent. Distress to the wearing surface appears limited to small popouts over fine aggregate 

particles. The core is severely distressed. Eighty-seven cracks were counted, along with 42 

occurrences of alkali-silica gel. Thirty-one reacted or distressed fine aggregate particles were 

counted. 

Core 97T52B: the core is marginally air-entrained with an estimated air content of 5 percent. 

Distress to the wearing surface appears limited to small popouts over fine aggregate particles. 

The core is moderately severely distressed. Forty-three cracks and 33 instances of alkali-silica 

gel were detected. Twenty-nine reacted or distressed fine aggregate particles were detected. 

Core 97T53B: the core is well air-entrained with an estimated air content of 6.5 percent. Distress 

to the wearing surface appears limited to small popouts over fine aggregate particles. Distress is 

relatively minor. Seventeen cracks were counted, and 25 instances of alkali-silica gel. Twentythree fine aggregate particles had reacted or were distressed. 

Core 97T54B: the core is poorly air-entrained with an estimated air content of 3.5 percent. 

Distress to the wearing surface is apparently limited to small popouts over fine aggregate 

particles. Distress is minor. Eight cracks and 13 occurrences of alkali-silica gel were counted. 

Thirty-one fine aggregate particles had reacted or were distressed. 

Distress is relatively severe in all but the last two cores. We do not have sufficient information to 

interpret the possible reason, since all were treated with lithium compounds, but we have not 

been told what differences there were. 

Petrographic Report for Newark, DE, 1998 

Sections from each of the cores were cut and lapped. These sections were then soaked overnight, 

dried, and the entire lapped surface was traversed under a stereo microscope. Each lapped 

surface was divided into five or more traverses areas and examined at magnifications of 10 to 30 

times. All instances of cracks, alkali-silica gel, and deteriorated or reacted aggregate particles 

were counted. 

Core 98-C1-A: the core is severely distressed. The wearing surface is grooved and worn. Fine 

aggregate particles on the wearing surface are frequently exposed, occasionally in popouts. 

Seventy-seven microcracks, one large crack, and 49 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. 

Thirty-nine reacted or distressed fine aggregate particles were counted. The core is air-entrained 

with an estimated air content of 6.5 percent. 
134 

Core 98-C5-B: the core is severely distressed. The wearing surface is grooved and worn. Fine 

aggregate particles on the wearing surface are frequently exposed, occasionally in popouts. Fiftyseven microcracks and 79 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Forty-two fine aggregate 

particles showed evidence of distress or reaction. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air 

content of 6 percent. 

Core 98-TS1-A: the core is severely distressed. The wearing surface is grooved and worn, with 

fine and coarse aggregate particles partially exposed. Fine aggregate particles are occasionally 

exposed in popouts. Two major cracks and fifty microcracks were counted. Sixty-one instances 

of alkali-silica gel and 38 reacted or distressed fine aggregate particles were counted. The core is 

air-entrained with an estimated air content of 5.5 percent. 

Core 98-TS-2B: the core is severely distressed. The grooved wearing surface is severely worn, 

exposing fine and coarse aggregate particles. Fine aggregate particles are frequently exposed in 

popouts. One major and 64 microcracks were detected. Fifty-eight instances of alkali-silica gel 

and 23 reacted or distressed fine aggregate particles were counted. The core is air-entrained with 

an estimated air content of 7.5 percent. 

Core 98-TS-3A: the core is slightly to moderately distressed. The grooved wearing surface is 

moderately worn with both fine and coarse aggregate particles exposed on it, but with few 

identifiable popouts. Twenty-five microcracks and 43 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. 

Fifteen fine aggregate particles had reacted or showed distress. The core is highly air entrained 

with an estimated air content of 8.5 percent. 

Core 98-TS-4B: the core is slightly distressed. The grooved wearing surface is severely worn 

with no other distinct evidence of distress. Fourteen microcracks and 44 instances of alkali-silica 

gel were detected. Fifteen fine aggregate particles showed evidence of distress or reaction. The 

core is air entrained with an estimated air content of 7.5 percent. 
135 

Table B2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—control section 1. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/29/94 11/28/95 11/21/96 12/9/97 10/22/98 

1L No. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M No. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H No. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L No. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L M2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M No. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M M2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H No. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H M2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L No. 1 1 1 1 1 

4L m 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M No. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H No. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed Y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL No. 1 1 1 1 1 

5aM No. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH No. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed No. 2 2 2 2 0 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 1 1 1 1 

7L (length) m 0 0.2 1.8 2 2 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 1 7 1 1 1 Map cracking 8a m2 11.5 23.2 26.8 27.8 29.7 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 17 - - - - - - 
136 

Table B3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—test section 1. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/29/94 11/28/95 11/21/96 12/9/97 10/22/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 1 1 1 1 1 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 

6L m 1.5 0.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 0 1 1 1 

7L (length) m 0 0 2.1 3.4 3.4 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 1 1 1 1 1 Map cracking 8a m2 11.8 21.8 28.3 29.1 31.4 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 17 - - - - - - 
137 

Table B4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—test section 2. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/29/94 11/28/95 12/21/96 12/9/97 10/22/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 1 1 1 1 1 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 

6L m 0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 2.5 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 1 1 1 1 1 

7L (length) m 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 1 1 1 1 1 Map cracking 8a m2 8 14.9 25.3 25.3 26 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 17 - - - - - - 
138 

Table B5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—control section 2. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/29/94 11/28/95 12/21/96 12/9/97 10/22/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 1 1 1 1 1 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 0 1 1 1 

7L (length) m 0 0 1.2 2.1 2.1 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 1 1 1 1 1 Map cracking 8a m2 6 11.1 13.9 14.9 26 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 17 - - - - - - 
139 

Table B6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—control section 3. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/29/94 11/28/95 12/21/96 12/9/97 10/22/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 1 1 1 1 1 

4L m 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 1 1 1 1 1 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 1 0 1 1 1 

7L (length) m 2 1 0.9 1.5 1.5 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 1 1 1 1 1 Map cracking 8a m2 9.8 20.8 22 25 29.7 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 17 - - - - - - 
140 

Table B7. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—control section 4. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/29/94 11/28/95 12/21/96 12/9/97 10/22/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 - 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 - 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 - 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 - 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 - 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 - 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 - 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 - 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 - 

3L m 0 0 0 0 - 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 - 

3M m 0 0 0 0 - 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 - 

3H m 0 0 0 0 - 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 - 

4L no. 1 1 1 1 1 

4L m 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 - 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 - 

4M m 0 0 0 0 - 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 - 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 - 

4H m 0 0 0 0 - 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 - 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y - 

5aL no. 1 1 1 1 - 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 - Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 - 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 - Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 - 

6L m 0 0 0 0 - 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 - 

6H m 0 0 0 0 - 

7L no. 1 0 0 0 - 

7L (length) m 2.5 2.5 0 0 - 

7M no. 0 0 1 1 1 

7M (length) m 0 0 2.4 2.4 2.4 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 - 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 - 

8a no. 1 1 1 1 - Map cracking 8a m2 5.3 6.3 7.5 9.5 - 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 - Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 - 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 - 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 - 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 - 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 - 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 - 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 - 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 - 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 - 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 - 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 - 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 - 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 - 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 - 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 - 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 - 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 - Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 - 

Other 17 - - - - - - 
141 

Table B8. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—test section 3. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/29/94 11/28/95 12/21/96 12/9/97 10/22/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 1 0 1 1 1 

4L m 2.4 0 2.7 3.4 3.4 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 1 1 1 1 1 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 0 1 1 1 

7L (length) m 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 1 1 1 1 1 Map cracking 8a m2 2.5 6.2 7.2 7.4 33.4 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 17 - - - - - - 
142 

Table B9. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—test section 4. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/29/94 11/28/95 12/21/96 12/9/97 10/22/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 1 1 2 1 1 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7L (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 1 1 1 1 1 Map cracking 8a m2 6.3 8.1 13.9 13.9 33.4 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 17 - - - - - - 
143 

Table B10. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—control section 5. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/29/94 11/28/95 12/21/96 12/9/97 10/22/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 2 2 2 2 2 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 2 2 2 1 1 

7L (length) m 1 1 2.9 0.6 0.6 

7M no. 0 0 0 1 1 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 2.25 2.25 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 1 1 1 1 1 Map cracking 8a m2 5.3 7.9 15.8 15.8 33.4 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 17 - - - - - - 

145 

APPENDIX C 

(a) Control section 1 (C1) 

Figure C1. Photographs showing typical areas of each section (Boron, CA). 
146 

(b) Methacrylate section 1 (M1) 

Figure C1. Photographs showing typical areas of each section (Boron, CA). (continued)
147 

(c) Methacrylate section 2 (M2)

Figure C1. Photographs showing typical areas of each section (Boron, CA). (continued)
148 

(d) Control section 3 (C3) 

Figure C1. Photographs showing typical areas of each section (Boron, CA). (continued)
149 

(e) Methacrylate section 3 (M3) 

Figure C1. Photographs showing typical areas of each section (Boron, CA). (continued)
150 

Petrographic Report for Boron, CA, 1997 

Two sections from each of the cores were cut and lapped. These sections were then soaked 

overnight, dried, and the entire lapped surface was traversed under a stereo microscope. The 

lapped surface was divided into five or more traverses and examined at magnifications of 10 to 

30 times. All instances of cracks, alkali-silica gel, and deteriorated or reacted aggregate particles 

were counted. 

Boron OH No. 1: The surface is worn and partially coated. This core is of smaller diameter than 

the other cores, and only 8 traverses were made. Twenty-two instances of cracks were counted, 

with no gel or distressed aggregate particles. The core is classified as slightly to moderately 

distressed. The core is poorly air-entrained with an estimated air content of 3 percent. 

Core 97-C1-3: The surface is moderately worn with moderately frequent popouts over coarse 

and fine aggregate particles. One hundred ninety cracks and 67 instances of alkali-silica gel were 

counted. Eight coarse and 20 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of distress or reaction. 

The core is classified as severely distressed. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air 

content of 5.5 percent. 

Core 97-C2-30: The surface is moderately worn with occasional popouts over aggregate 

particles. One hundred seventy-four cracks and 24 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. 

Eleven coarse and 23 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of reaction or distress. The core 

is classified as severely distressed. It is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 6 percent. 

Core 97-C2-32: The surface is worn and cracked with occasional popouts over aggregate 

particles. One hundred ninety cracks and 44 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Twentysix coarse and 30 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of distress or deterioration. The core 

is classified as severely distressed. It is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 6 percent. 

Core 97-M1-33: The surface is worn with occasional popouts over aggregate particles. One 

hundred ninety-one cracks and 65 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Twenty-three 

coarse and 33 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of distress or reaction. The core is 

classified as severely distressed. It is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 5.5 percent. 

Core 97-M2-33: The surface is worn and partially coated. Popouts over aggregate particles are 

occasionally present. On hundred thirty-five cracks and 59 instances of alkali-silica gel were 

counted. Twenty-nine coarse and 24 fine aggregate particles show evidence of distress or 

reaction. The core is classified as moderately severely distressed. It is poorly air-entrained and 

with estimated air content of 3.5 percent. 

Core 97-M3-32: The surface is worn and partially coated. Occasional popouts over aggregate 

particles are present. One hundred thirty-four cracks and 46 instances of alkali-silica gel were 

counted. Thirty-one coarse and 32 fine aggregate particles show evidence of reaction or distress. 

The core is classified as moderately severely distressed. It is air-entrained with an estimated air 

content of 4 percent. 
151 

Petrographic Report for Boron, CA, 1998 

Sections from each of the cores were cut and lapped. These sections were then soaked overnight, 

dried, and the entire lapped surface was traversed under a stereo microscope. Each lapped 

surface was divided into five or more (except the Boron OH cores) traverse areas and examined 

at magnifications of 10 to 30 times. Due to their smaller diameter (95.25 mm), the Boron OH 

cores were divided into 4 traverses. All instances of cracks, alkali-silica gel, and deteriorated or 

reacted aggregate particles were counted. 

Boron OH-98-1: The wearing surface is moderately worn. Two cracks intercepting each other at 

approximate right angles are evident on the surface, and appear to have been repaired with an 

elastomeric material. The core is moderately severely distressed. Two macroscopic and 29 

microcracks were counted. Twenty-one instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Seven coarse 

and 8 fine aggregate particles show evidence of reaction or distress. The core is non-air-entrained 

with an estimated air content of 3 percent. 

Boron OH-98-4: The wearing surface is moderately worn. Two cracks intercepting each other at 

approximate right angles are evident on the surface, and appear to have been repaired with an 

elastomeric material. The core is moderately severely distressed. One large and 29 microcracks 

were counted. Thirty-six instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Eleven coarse and 7 fine 

aggregate particles showed evidence of reaction or distress. The core is non-air-entrained with an 

estimated air content of 1.5 percent. 

98-C1-40: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequently exposed fine aggregate 

particles. Two large cracks form a “Y” shaped intercept on the wearing surface. The core is 

severely distressed. Five large and 86 microcracks were counted, and 49 instances of alkali-silica 

gel were counted. Twenty-two coarse and 21 fine aggregate particles show evidence of distress 

or reaction. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 5 percent. 

98-C1-42: the wearing surface is moderately severely worn with frequently exposed aggregate 

particles. Two distinct popouts over aggregate particles are present. The core is severely 

distressed. Sixty microcracks and 41 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Twenty-three 

coarse and 21 fine aggregate particles show evidence of distress or reaction. The core is airentrained with an estimated air content of 5 percent. 

98-C3-41: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequently exposed aggregate particles and 

worn popouts. The core is severely distressed. Three large cracks, 50 microcracks, and 28 

instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Eleven coarse and 8 fine aggregate particles show 

evidence of reaction or distress. The core is poorly air-entrained with an estimated air content 

that varies locally from 2 to 5 percent. 

98-C3-42: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequently exposed fine aggregate 

particles. The core is severely distressed. Two large and 63 microcracks were counted, as were 

14 instances of alkali-silica gel. Twelve coarse and 10 fine aggregate particles showed evidence 

of reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 6 percent. 

98-M1-41: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequently exposed aggregate particles. 

The core is moderately severely distressed. One large and 51 microcracks were counted, and 20 
152 

instances of alkali-silica gel were noted. Nine coarse and nine fine aggregate particles showed 

evidence of distress or reaction. The core is marginally air entrained with an estimated air 

content of 4 percent. 

98-M1-42: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequently exposed aggregate particles. 

The core is severely distressed. Six major and 84 microcracks were counted, and there were 32 

occurrences of alkali-silica gel. Seventeen coarse and 15 fine aggregate particles showed 

evidence of reaction or distress. The core is poorly air-entrained with an estimated air content of 

3.5 percent. 

98-M2-40B: The wearing surface is severely worn. Aggregate particles are frequently exposed 

and polished. The core is severely distressed. Three major and 72 microcracks were counted, and 

there were 12 instances of alkali-silica gel. Twelve coarse and seven fine aggregate particles 

show evidence of distress or reaction. The core is marginally air-entrained with an estimated air 

content of 4 percent. 

98-M2-41: The wearing surface is severely worn. Aggregate particles are frequently exposed and 

polished. The core is severely distressed. Three major and 89 microcracks were counted, as well 

as 23 occurrences of alkali-silica gel. Eighteen coarse and 16 fine aggregate particles show 

evidence of reaction or distress. The core is marginally air-entrained with an estimated air 

content of 4.5 percent. 

98-M3-41: The wearing surface is severely worn, with very frequently exposed and polished 

aggregate particles. The core is moderately severely distressed. Sixty-six microcracks and 29 

instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Fourteen coarse and 7 fine aggregate particles show 

evidence of distress or reaction. The core is air-entrained and has an estimated air content of 8 

percent. 

98-M3-42: The wearing surface is severely worn, with very frequently exposed and polished 

aggregate particles. The core is moderately severely distressed. Sixty-seven microcracks and 24 

instances of alkali-silica gel were counted,. Ten coarse and 13 fine aggregate particles showed 

evidence of reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 

6 percent.
153 

Table C1. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—C1-boron. 

Type Identification code Unit 2/28/95 11/8/95 12/9/96 10/14/97 9/29/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse crackig 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n N N N N N 

5aL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal jointseal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 1 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 32 0 0 0 0 

7L (length) m 117 0 0 0 0 

7M no. 1 31 11 17 4 

7M (length) m 3.7 113.3 40.2 67.2 14.6 

7H no. 0 2 22 16 29 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 7.4 80.2 58.5 106.1 

8aL no. remainder remainder remainder remainder remainder 

8aL m2 524.5 499.0 496.5 449.4 387.3 

8aM no. 32 59 47 51 39 

8aM m2 32.9 56.3 40.5 74.8 86.3 

8aH no. 0 2 19 15 27 

Map cracking 

(for 2/28/95 survey, the 8aL and 

8aM amounts were combined 

due to grading rule changes) 

8aH m2 0 2.1 20.4 33.2 83.8 

15fL no. 4 0 7 7 7 

15fL m2 0.5 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 

15fM no. 1 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0.1 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 3 1 1 1 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 

15rL no. 1 0 1 1 1 

15rL m2 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

15rM no. 0 0 1 1 1 

15rM m2 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

15rH no. 0 0 1 1 1 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-M no. 27 0 6 10 10 

WP-H no. 5 32 26 22 22 

CL-L no. 26 0 3 1 0 

CL-M no. 6 32 22 26 26 

Other 

CL-H no. 0 0 7 5 6 

L m 117.8 62.5 33.8 30.8 0.0 

M m 2.4 53.3 76.5 82.6 99.1 Total joint length at level 

(from sheet 6) H m 0.5 4.9 10.4 7.6 22.2 

 

Total m 120.7 120.7 120.7008 121 121.3 

Percent L - 98 52 28 25 0 

Percent M - 2 44 63 68 82 

Total joint length 

(from sheet 6) 

Percent H - 0 4 9 6 18 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 

Percent L - 94 90 89 81 69 

Percent M - 6 10 7 13 15 

Map cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 4 6 15 

Total no. 33 33 33 33 33 

Total m 120.7 120.7 120.4 125.7 120.7 

Percent L - 97 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 3 94 33 53 12 

Spalling of transverse joints 

(using 10 rule) 

Percent H - 0 6 67 47 88 
154 

Table C2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—C2-boron. 

Type Identification code Unit 2/28/95 11/8/95 12/9/96 10/14/97 9/29/98 

1L no. not tested 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. not tested 0 0 

1H no. not tested 0 0 

2L no. not tested 0 0 

2L m2 not tested 0 0 

2M no. not tested 0 0 

2M m2 not tested 0 0 

2H no. not tested 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 not tested 0 0 

3L m not tested 0 0 

3L (sealed) m not tested 0 0 

3M m not tested 0 0 

3M (sealed) m not tested 0 0 

3H m not tested 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m not tested 0 0 

4L no. not tested 0 0 

4L m not tested 0 0 

4L (sealed) m not tested 0 0 

4M no. not tested 0 0 

4M m not tested 0 0 

4M (sealed) m not tested 0 0 

4H no. not tested 0 0 

4H m not tested 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m not tested 0 0 

Sealed y/n not tested N N 

5aL no. not tested 0 0 

5aM no. not tested 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. not tested 0 0 

No. sealed no. not tested 0 0 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m not tested 0 0 

6L m not tested 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m not tested 0 0 

6H m not tested 0 0 

7L no. not tested 0 0 

7L (length) m not tested 0 0 

7M no. not tested 33 27 

7M (length) m not tested 120.78 98.82 

7H no. not tested 0 6 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m not tested 0 21.96 

8aL no. not tested remainder remainder 

8aL m2 not tested 505.2982 503.9082 

8aM no. not tested 65 66 

8aM m2 not tested 52.12 53.51 

8aH no. not tested 0 0 

Map cracking 

(for 2/28/95 survey, the 8aL and 

8aM amounts were combined 

Due to grading rule changes) 

8aH m2 not tested 0 0 

15fL no. not tested 0 0 

15fL m2 not tested 0 0 

15fM no. not tested 0 0 

15fM m2 not tested 0 0 

15fH no. not tested 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 not tested 0 0 

15rL no. not tested 0 0 

15rL m2 not tested 0 0 

15rM no. not tested 0 0 

15rM m2 not tested 0 0 

15rH no. not tested 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 not tested 0 0 

16 no. not tested 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m not tested 0 0 

WP-L no. not tested 0 0 

WP-M no. not tested 32 32 

WP-H no. not tested 0 0 

CL-L no. not tested 8 5 

CL-M no. not tested 24 27 

Other 

CL-H no. not tested 0 0 

L m not tested 60.7 8.84 

M m not tested 60.0 109.73 Total joint length at level 

(from sheet 6) H m not tested 0 2.13 

 

Total m 120.7 120.7 

Percent L 50.3 7.3 

Percent M 49.7 90.9 

Total joint length 

(from sheet 6) 

Percent H 0.0 1.8 

Total no 0 0 

Total m 557.4182 557.4182 

Percent L 91 90 

Percent M 9 10 

Map cracking 

Percent H 0 0 

Total no. 33 33 

Total m 120.78 120.78 

Percent L 0 0 

Percent M 100 82 

Spalling of transverse joints 

(using 10 rule) 

Percent H 0 5 
155 

Table C3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—C3-boron. 

Type Identification code Unit 2/28/95 11/8/95 12/9/96 10/14/97 9/29/98 

1L no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

1H no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

2L no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

2M no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

2H no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

3L m not tested 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

3M m not tested 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

3H m not tested 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

4L no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

4L m not tested 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

4M no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

4M m not tested 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

4H no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

4H m not tested 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n not tested N N N N 

5aL no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

5aM no. not tested 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. not tested 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m not tested 0 0 0 0 

6L m not tested 6.8 12 12 12 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m not tested 0 0 0 0 

6H m not tested 0 0 0 0 

7L no. not tested 32 19 2 0 

7L (length) m not tested 117 69.5 7.32 0 

7M no. not tested 0 13 30 32 

7M (length) m not tested 0 47.5 109.8 117 

7H no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

8aL no. not tested remainder remainder remainder remainder 

8aL m2 not tested 557.4182 547.6182 531.4982 509.1082 

8aM no. not tested 0 35 50 66 

8aM m2 not tested 0 9.8 25.92 48.31 

8aH no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

Map cracking 

(for 2/28/95 survey, the 8aL and 

8aM amounts were combined 

due to grading rule changes) 

8aH m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15fL no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

16 no. not tested 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m not tested 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. not tested 2 5 1 0 

WP-M no. not tested 31 28 32 29 

WP-H no. not tested 0 0 0 4 

CL-L no. not tested 32 30 30 4 

CL-M no. not tested 1 3 3 29 

Other 

CL-H no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

L m not tested 117 100.7 80.6 2.4 

M m not tested 0 16.3 36.4 114.3 Total joint length at level 

(from sheet 6) H m not tested 0 0 0 0.3 

 

Total m 0 117 117 117 117 

Percent L - 0 100 86.1 68.9 2.1 

Percent M - 0 0 13.9 31.1 97.7 

Total joint length 

(from sheet 6) 

Percent H - 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 0 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 

Percent L - 0 100 98 95 91 

Percent M - 0 0 2 5 9 

Map cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 0 32 32 32 32 

Total m 0 117 117 117.12 117 

Percent L - 0 100 59 6 0 

Percent M - 0 0 41 94 100 

Spalling of transverse joints 

(using 10 rule) 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 
156 

Table C4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—M1-boron. 

Type Identification code Unit 2/28/95 11/8/95 12/9/96 10/14/97 9/29/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n N N N N N 

5aL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 6.1 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 29 0 0 0 0 

7L (length) m 106.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

7M no. 2 32 32 30 24 

7M (length) m 7.3 117.0 117.0 109.8 87.8 

7H no. 0 0 0 2 8 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 29.3 

8aL no. remainder remainder remainder remainder remainder 

8aL m2 510.0182 511.1182 506.6182 481.1482 456.5282 

8aM no. 26 61 60 63 64 

8aM m2 38.5 46.3 49.1 76.27 100.89 

8aH no. 5 0 1 0 0 

Map cracking 

(for 2/28/95 survey, the 8aL and 

8aM amounts were combined 

due to grading rule changes) 

8aH m2 8.9 0 1.7 0 0 

15fL no. 1 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0.2 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 2 2 2 

15rL m2 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. 1 0 3 22 0 

WP-M no. 32 33 30 11 33 

WP-H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

CL-L no. 31 13 33 33 8 

CL-M no. 2 20 0 0 25 

Other 

CL-H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

L m 119.1 39.6 64.6 52.7 28.7 

M m 1.6 80.5 55.5 63.7 83.8 Total joint length at level 

(from sheet 6) H m 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 4.6 

 

Total m 117 117 117 117 117 

Percent L - 102 34 55 45 25 

Percent M - 1 69 47 54 72 

Total joint length 

(from sheet 6) 

Percent H - 0 0 1 1 4 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 

Percent L - 91 92 91 86 82 

Percent M - 7 8 9 14 18 

Map cracking 

Percent H - 2 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 31 32 32 32 32 

Total m 113.4 117 117 117.12 117.12 

Percent L - 94 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 6 100 100 94 75 

Spalling of transverse joints 

(using 10 rule) 

Percent H - 0 0 0 6 25 
157 

Table C5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—M2-boron. 

Type Identification code Unit 2/28/95 11/8/95 12/9/96 10/14/97 9/29/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n N N N N N 

5aL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 1 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 32 0 3 0 0 

7L (length) m 82.3 0 11 0 0 

7M no. 0 32 29 32 31 

7M (length) m 0 63.4 106.1 117.1 113.5 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 1 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 3.7 

8aL no. remainder remainder remainder remainder remainder 

8aL m2 510.8 527.7 521.4 509.0 505.6 

8aM no. 30 39 52 55 52 

8aM m2 44.4 29.7 36.0 48.5 51.9 

8aH no. 2 0 0 0 0 

Map cracking 

(for 2/28/95 survey, the 8aL and 

8aM amounts were combined 

due to grading rule changes) 

8aH m2 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. 0 0 17 19 0 

WP-M no. 32 33 15 14 33 

WP-H no. 1 0 1 0 0 

CL-L no. 33 33 30 33 27 

CL-M no. 0 0 3 0 6 

Other 

CL-H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

L m 80.7 17.4 81.7 70.6 41.0 

M m 1.6 46.0 35.4 46.2 75.7 Total joint length at level 

(from sheet 6) H m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

 

Total m 82.3 63.4 117.0432 116.8 117 

Percent L - 98 27 70 60 35 

Percent M - 2 73 30 40 65 

Total joint length 

(from sheet 6) 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 

Percent L - 91.6 94.7 93.5 91.3 90.7 

Percent M - 8.0 5.3 6.5 8.7 9.3 

Map cracking 

Percent H - 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total no. 32 32 32 32 32 

Total m 82.3 63.4 117.1 117.1 117.1 

Percent L - 100 0 9 0 0 

Percent M - 0 100 91 100 97 

Spalling of transverse joints 

(using 10 rule) 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 1 
158 

Table C6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—M3-boron. 

Type Identification code Unit 2/28/95 11/8/95 12/9/96 10/14/97 9/29/98 

1L no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

1H no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

2L no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

2M no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

2H no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

3L m not tested 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

3M m not tested 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

3H m not tested 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

4L no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

4L m not tested 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

4M no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

4M m not tested 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

4H no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

4H m not tested 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m not tested 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n not tested N N N N 

5aL no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

5aM no. not tested 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. not tested 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m not tested 0 0 0 0 

6L m not tested 2.7 2 2 2 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m not tested 0 0 0 0 

6H m not tested 0 0 0 0 

7L no. not tested 8 16 14 1 

7L (length) m not tested 5.1 26.2 51.2 3.7 

7M no. not tested 12 16 19 29 

7M (length) m not tested 13 29.6 69.5 106.1 

7H no. not tested 0 0 0 3 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m not tested 0 0 0 11.0 

8aL no. not tested remainder remainder remainder remainder 

8aL m2 not tested 551.7182 551.0182 551.0182 534.1982 

8aM no. not tested 6 17 17 43 

8aM m2 not tested 5.7 6.4 6.4 23.22 

8aH no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

Map cracking 

8aH m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15fL no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. not tested 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 not tested 0 0 0 0 

16 no. not tested 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m not tested 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. not tested 31 31 17 

WP-M no. not tested 2 3 17 

WP-H no. not tested 0 0 0 

CL-L no. not tested 33 33 30 

CL-M no. not tested 0 1 4 

Other 

CL-H no. not tested 0 0 0 

L m not tested 7.9 43.2816 82.9 82.6 

M m not tested 14 10.0584 12.5 37.2 Total joint length at level 

(from sheet 6) H m not tested 0 0 0 0.9 

 

Total m 0 21.9 53.34 95.4 120.7 

Percent L - 0 36 81 87 68 

Percent M - 0 64 19 13 31 

Total joint length 

(from sheet 6) 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 1 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 0 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 557.4182 

Percent L - 0 99 99 99 96 

Percent M - 0 1 1 1 4 

Map cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 0 20 32 33 33 

Total m 0 18.1 55.8 120.78 120.78 

Percent L - 0 28 47 42 3 

Percent M - 0 72 53 58 88 

Spalling of transverse joints 

(using 10 rule) 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 9 
159 

APPENDIX D 

Petrographic Report for Albuquerque, NM, 1997 

Sections from each of the cores were cut and lapped. These sections were then soaked overnight, 

dried, and the entire lapped surface was traversed under a stereo microscope. The lapped surface 

was divided into five traverses and examined at magnifications of 10 to 30 times. All instances 

of cracks, alkali-silica gel, and deteriorated or reacted aggregate particles were counted. 

Core 97-1-1: The core is well air-entrained with an estimated air content of approximately 

7 percent. There were numerous popouts and scales on the wearing surface. Eight microcracks 

were counted. No gel was detected. Three fine aggregate particles had reacted. 

Core 97-2-2: The core is well air-entrained with an estimated air content of approximately 

7 percent. The wearing surface appears worn but otherwise undistressed. Eight microcracks were 

counted. Three instances of alkali-silica gel were detected. Eleven fine aggregate particles show 

evidence of reaction. 

Core 97-3-1: The core is marginally air-entrained with an estimated air content of approximately 

4 percent. The wearing surface has occasional spalls and popouts over aggregate particles. Nine 

microcracks were counted. Eighteen instances of alkali-silica gel were detected. Three coarse 

and 15 fine aggregate particles show evidence of reaction or distress. 

Core 97-4-2: The core is well to slightly over air-entrained with an estimated air content of 

8 percent. There are numerous popouts and shallow spalls on the wearing surface. Five 

microcracks were counted. Twenty-one instances of alkali-silica gel, 5 reacted or distressed 

coarse aggregate particles, and 20 reacted or distressed fine aggregate particles were detected. 

Core 97-5-1: The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 5.5 percent. There are 

frequent shallow spalls and popouts on the wearing surface, as well as a “Y” shaped crack. 

Microcracks are frequent throughout the core and distress is severe. Ninety-two of the largest 

cracks were counted. Thirty-six instances of alkali-silica gel, 10 reacted or distressed coarse 

aggregate particles, and 49 reacted or distressed fine aggregate particles were counted. 

Core 97-6-1: The core is air-entrained with slightly variable air content. The air content is 

estimated to be approximately 4.5 percent to 6 percent. The wearing surface is slightly worn but 

shows no other apparent distress. Two microcracks were counted. Seven instances of alkali-silica 

gel were detected; two reacted or distressed coarse aggregate particles; and six reacted or 

distressed fine aggregate particles were counted. 

Core 97-7-2: The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of approximately 

6.5 percent. Infrequent small popouts are present on the wearing surface. One microcrack was 

counted. Three instances of alkali-silica gel were detected. One coarse aggregate particle had 

reacted; 21 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of reaction or distress. 

Core 97-8-2: The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of approximately 7 percent. 

There are occasional popouts over fine aggregate particles on the wearing surface. Four very 

short microcracks were counted within approximately 13 cm of the wearing surface. Four 

instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. One coarse and 10 fine aggregate particles showed 

evidence of reaction or distress. 
160 

Core 97-9-1: The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of approximately 6 percent. 

There are infrequent small popouts over fine aggregate particles on the wearing surface. Three 

short microcracks were counted, two near the wearing surface. Two instances of alkali-silica gel 

were counted. Two coarse and two fine aggregate particles showed evidence of reaction or 

distress. 

Core 97-10-2: The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of approximately 7 percent. 

There are occasional small popouts over fine aggregate particles, and two large spalls on the 

wearing surface. It is not clear from this core whether the spalls are due to aggregate related 

distress or physical damage. Two short microcracks were counted within approximately 25 cm of 

the wearing surface. Six instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. One coarse and 10 fine 

aggregate particles showed evidence of reaction or distress. 

Core 97-11-1: The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of approximately 

6.5 percent. No distress, only normal wear, was evident on the wearing surface. Two 

microcracks extending approximately 20 cm from the wearing surface were counted. Two 

instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Seven coarse aggregate and 21 fine aggregate 

particles showed evidence of reaction or distress. 

With the exception of two cores, distress is very minor in these specimens. There is a general 

paucity of alkali-silica gel; cracking is usually very minor and very fine. Even where particles 

can be seen to have reacted, the amount of reaction or deterioration is usually minimal. 

Petrographic Report for Albuquerque, NM 1998 

Sections from each of the cores were cut and lapped. These sections were then soaked overnight, 

dried, and the entire lapped surface was traversed under a stereo microscope. Each lapped 

surface was divided into five or more traverse areas and examined at magnifications of 10 to 30 

times. All instances of cracks, alkali-silica gel, and deteriorated or reacted aggregate particles 

were counted. 

Core 98-1-2: The core shows scant deterioration. The wearing surface has a slightly to 

moderately worn coarse broomed finish with occasional popouts over aggregate particles. Three 

microcracks were counted, as were 24 occurrences of alkali-silica gel. Three coarse and 36 fine 

aggregate particles show slight evidence of reaction. The core is air-entrained with an estimated 

air content of 6.5 percent. 

Core 98-2-2: The wearing surface has a moderately worn, coarse broomed finish on which 

aggregate particles are occasionally exposed. The core is minimally distressed. Seven cracks and 

24 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Two coarse and 27 fine aggregate particles show 

evidence of reaction. One fine aggregate particle was severely distressed. The core is air 

entrained with an estimated air content of 7 percent. 

Core 98-3-2: The wearing surface is moderately to severely worn with frequent exposed 

aggregate particles, some apparently in old, worn popouts. The core shows abundant evidence of 

reaction but little distress. Two microcracks and 68 occurrences of gel were detected. Two coarse 

and 35 fine aggregate particles show evidence of reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained 

with an estimated air content of 5 percent. 
161 

Core 98-4-2: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequent exposed coarse and fine 

aggregate particles. Surface wear is too great to determine whether any were once popouts. The 

core shows evidence of reaction but little distress. Five microcracks were detected, as were fiftyone instances of alkali-silica gel. Ten coarse and 51 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of 

distress or reaction. The core is highly air entrained with an estimated air content of 8.5 percent. 

Core 98-5-2: The wearing surface is severely worn, with numerous exposed coarse and fine 

aggregate particles, one empty coarse aggregate particle socket, and five visible cracks, three of 

which intersect near the center of the core. The core is severely distressed. In addition to the 

features noted above, 254 microcracks and 135 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Fiftytwo coarse and 75 fine aggregate particles show evidence of reaction or distress. The core is airentrained with a variable entrained air content which is estimated to range from 4 to 8 percent. 

Core 98-6-2: The wearing surface is moderately worn with occasional exposed coarse and fine 

aggregate particles. The core shows slight evidence of distress or deterioration. Twenty-six 

microcracks and 25 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Fourteen coarse and 32 fine 

aggregate particles show evidence of reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an 

estimated air content of 8 percent. 

Core 98-7-2: The wearing surface is moderately worn with frequently exposed aggregate 

particles. The core shows considerable evidence of reaction but little evidence of distress. Ten 

microcracks and 92 occurrences of alkali-silica gel were counted. Twenty-four course and 54 

fine aggregate particles showed evidence of distress or reaction. The core is air-entrained with an 

estimated air content of 7 percent. 

Core 98-8-2: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequent exposed aggregate particles. 

There is considerable evidence of reaction but little evidence of distress. Twenty-one 

microcracks, chiefly contained within reacted aggregate particles, and 45 occurrences of alkalisilica gel were counted. Sixteen coarse and 36 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of 

reaction or distress. The core is highly air-entrained with an estimated air content of 8 percent. 

Core 98-9-2: The wearing surface is moderately to severely worn with frequent exposed 

aggregate particles. Although the core contains substantial evidence of ASR, apparent distress is 

slight. Twenty-one microcracks—chiefly limited to aggregate particles—and 58 instances of 

alkali-silica gel were counted. Sixteen coarse and 45 fine aggregate particles show evidence of 

distress or reaction. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 8 percent. 

Core 98-10-2: The wearing surface is moderately worn with moderately frequent exposed 

aggregate particles. The core contains abundant evidence of reaction, but little evidence of 

distress. Eighteen microcracks—all contained in aggregate particles—and 77 instances of alkalisilica gel were counted. Twenty-one coarse and 51 fine aggregate particles showed evidence of 

reaction or distress. The core is air-entrained with an estimated air content of 6 percent. 

Core 98-11-2: The wearing surface is severely worn with frequent exposed aggregate particles. 

The core contains frequent evidence of reaction, but little evidence of distress. Eleven 

microcracks and 55 instances of alkali-silica gel were counted. Sixteen coarse and 60 fine 

aggregate particles show evidence of distress or reaction. The core is air-entrained with an 

estimated air content of 6 percent. 
162 

Table D1. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—1–1% LiOH. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/8/94 10/16/95 12/11/96 10/16/97 10/1/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 2 2 2 2 2 

5aM no. 1 1 1 1 1 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 1 1 2 1 1 

7L (length) m 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.7 

7M no. 0 0 0 1 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0.4 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 1 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 3 

8a no. 0 2 4 4 1 Map cracking 8a m2 0 10 11.5 32 54 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. - - - - - 

WP-M no. - - - - - 

WP-H no. - - - - - 

CL-L no. - - - - - 

CL-M no. - - - - - 

Other 

CL-H no. - - - - 

 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 1 1 2 2 2 

Total m 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.7 5.8 

Percent L - 100 100 100 76 47 

Percent M - 0 0 0 24 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 52 
163 

Table D2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—2–0.5% LiOH. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/8/94 10/16/95 12/11/96 10/16/97 10/1/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 2 2 2 2 2 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 0 2 0 0 

7L (length) m 0 0 0.6 0 0 

7M no. 0 0 0 2 2 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 1.9 5.5 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 0 2 5 4 1 Map cracking 8a m2 0 6 5.9 24.3 25.5 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. - - - - - 

WP-M no. - - - - - 

WP-H no. - - - - - 

CL-L no. - - - - - 

CL-M no. - - - - - 

Other 

CL-H no. - - - - - 

 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 0 0 2 2 2 

Total m 0 0 0.6 1.9 5.5 

Percent L - 0 0 100 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 100 100 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 
164 

Table D3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—3-Lomar. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/8/94 10/16/95 12/11/96 10/16/97 10/1/98 

1L no. 0 0 1 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 1 2 1 1 1 

5aM no. 1 0 1 1 1 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 2 0 0 0 0 

7L (length) m 0.2 0 0 0 0 

7M no. 0 1 2 2 0 

7M (length) m 0 0.5 1.2 1.6 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 2 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 4.3 

8a no. 0 0 0 1 2 Map cracking 8a m2 0 0 0 3.1 7 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. - - - - - 

WP-M no. - - - - - 

WP-H no. - - - - - 

CL-L no. - - - - - 

CL-M no. - - - - - 

Other 

CL-H no. - - - - - 

 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 2 1 2 2 2 

Total m 0.2 0.5 1.2 1.6 4.3 

Percent L - 100 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 100 100 100 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 100 
165 

Table D4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—4-class F fly ash. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/8/94 10/16/95 12/11/96 10/16/97 10/1/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 3 3 3 3 3 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 1 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 1.5 0 0 0 0 

6L m 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 0 2 3 3 

7L (length) m 0 0 0.3 1.6 5.2 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 0 1 1 1 2 Map cracking 8a m2 0 1 1 1.8 1.8 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. - - - - - 

WP-M no. - - - - - 

WP-H no. - - - - - 

CL-L no. - - - - - 

CL-M no. - - - - - 

Other 

CL-H no. - - - - - 

 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 0 0 2 3 3 

Total m 0 0 0.3 1.6 5.2 

Percent L - 0 0 100 100 100 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 
166 

Table D5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—5-class F fly ash. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/8/94 10/16/95 12/11/96 10/16/97 10/1/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 1 1 1 1 

4L m 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 1 2 2 0 0 

4M m 3.3 6.8 7.4 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 3.3 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 2 2 

4H m 0 0 0 6.7 7.0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 2 2 2 2 2 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 2 1 0 0 

7L (length) m 0 7 3.7 0 0 

7M no. 0 0 1 2 2 

7M (length) m 0 0 3.6 7.1 7.1 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 0 1 1 1 1 Map cracking 8a m2 0 49 49 49 49 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. - - - - - 

WP-M no. - - - - - 

WP-H no. - - - - - 

CL-L no. - - - - - 

CL-M no. - - - - - 

Other 

CL-H no. - - - - - 

 

Total m 0 4.3 4.5 6.6 6.6 

Percent L - 0 100 100 68 68 

Percent M - 0 0 0 32 32 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 1 3 3 3 3 

Total m 3.3 7.3 7.9 7.7 8 

Percent L - 0 7 6 13 12 

Percent M - 100 93 94 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 87 88 

Total no. 0 2 2 2 2 

Total m 0 7 7.3 7.1 7.1 

Percent L - 0 100 51 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 49 100 100 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 
167 

Table D6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—6-control. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/8/94 10/16/95 12/11/96 10/16/97 10/1/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 3 3 3 3 3 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 0 3 3 3 

7L (length) m 0 0 0.6 2.1 7 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 0 0 0 2 2 Map cracking 8a m2 0 0 0 8.1 35.9 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. - - - - - 

WP-M no. - - - - - 

WP-H no. - - - - - 

CL-L no. - - - - - 

CL-M no. - - - - - 

Other 

CL-H no. - - - - - 

 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 0 0 3 3 3 

Total m 0 0 0.6 2.1 7 

Percent L - 0 0 100 100 100 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 
168 

Table D7. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—7-blended C&F. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/8/94 10/16/95 12/11/96 10/16/97 10/1/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 1 1 2 2 1 

4L m 3.3 3.4 4.2 4.2 1.2 

4L (sealed) m 3.3 3.4 0 0 0 

4M no. 1 0 0 0 0 

4M m 3.3 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 1 1 1 2 

4H m 0 3.4 3.7 3.7 6.7 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 3 3 3 3 3 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 0 2 3 3 

7L (length) m 0 0 0.4 4.5 7 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 0 0 0 3 4 Map cracking 8a m2 0 0 0 19 28.7 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. - - - - - 

WP-M no. - - - - - 

WP-H no. - - - - - 

CL-L no. - - - - - 

CL-M no. - - - - - 

Other 

CL-H no. - - - - - 

 

Total m 0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

Percent L - 0 100 100 100 100 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 2 2 3 3 3 

Total m 6.6 6.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 

Percent L - 50 50 53 53 15 

Percent M - 50 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 50 47 47 85 

Total no. 0 0 2 3 3 

Total m 0 0 0.4 4.5 7 

Percent L - 0 0 100 100 100 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 
169 

Table D8. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—8-class F. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/8/94 10/16/95 12/11/96 10/16/97 10/1/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 2 0 0 0 0 

4L m 2.7 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 0 2 1 1 1 

5aM no. 2 0 1 1 1 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7L (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7M no. 2 1 1 0 0 

7M (length) m 2.6 1.2 1.1 0 0 

7H no. 0 1 1 2 2 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 1.8 1.9 5.2 5.2 

8a no. 0 2 3 3 1 Map cracking 8a m2 0 0.7 3.9 34 45 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. - - - - - 

WP-M no. - - - - - 

WP-H no. - - - - - 

CL-L no. - - - - - 

CL-M no. - - - - - 

Other 

CL-H no. - - - - - 

 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 2 0 0 0 0 

Total m 2.7 0 0 0 

Percent L - 100 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 2 2 2 2 2 

Total m 2.6 3 3 5.2 5.5 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 100 40 37 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 60 63 100 95 
170 

Table D9. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—9-control. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/8/94 10/16/95 12/11/96 10/16/97 10/1/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 3 3 3 3 3 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 0 2 3 3 

7L (length) m 0 0 0.4 4.5 8.1 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 0 0 0 5 1 Map cracking 8a m2 0 0 0 25 47.3 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. - - - - - 

WP-M no. - - - - - 

WP-H no. - - - - - 

CL-L no. - - - - - 

CL-M no. - - - - - 

Other 

CL-H no. - - - - - 

 

Total m 0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

Percent L - 0 100 100 100 100 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 0 0 2 3 3 

Total m 0 0 0.4 4.5 8.1 

Percent L - 0 0 100 100 100 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 
171 

Table D10. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—10–1% LiOH. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/8/94 10/16/95 12/11/96 10/16/97 10/1/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L No. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M No. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H No. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL No. 2 2 2 2 2 

5aM No. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH No. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed No. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L No. 0 1 2 2 2 

7L (length) M 0 0.5 0.5 2.4 5.5 

7M No. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) M 0 0 0 0 0 

7H No. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) M 0 0 0 0 0 

8a No. 0 0 1 5 1 Map cracking 8a m2 0 0 0.6 18 42.9 

8b No. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 No. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL No. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM No. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH No. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL No. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM No. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH No. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 No. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L No. - - - - - 

WP-M No. - - - - - 

WP-H No. - - - - - 

CL-L No. - - - - - 

CL-M No. - - - - - 

Other 

CL-H No. - - - - - 

 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total No 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total No. 0 1 2 2 2 

Total m 0 0.5 0.5 2.4 5.5 

Percent L - 0 100 100 100 100 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 
172 

Table D11. Summary of LTPP survey sheets 

for ASR investigation—11-class C ash. 

Type Identification code Unit 11/8/94 10/16/95 12/11/96 10/16/97 10/1/98 

1L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Corner breaks 1M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

1H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2L m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

2M m2 0 0 0 0 0 

2H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Durability cracking 

2H m2 0 0 0 0 0 

3L m 0 0 0 0 0 

3L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M m 0 0 0 0 0 

3M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

3H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Longitudinal cracking 

3H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4L m 0 0 0 0 0 

4L (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4M m 0 0 0 0 0 

4M (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

4H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

4H m 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

4H (sealed) m 0 0 0 0 0 

Sealed y/n Y Y Y Y Y 

5aL no. 4 4 4 4 4 

5aM no. 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse joint seal damage 

5aH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

No. sealed no. 2 2 2 2 2 Longitudinal joint seal damage 5b m 0 0 0 0 0 

6L m 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of longitudinal joints 6M m 0 0 0 0 0 

6H m 0 0 0 0 0 

7L no. 0 2 4 4 4 

7L (length) m 0 2.1 5 9.7 11 

7M no. 0 0 0 0 0 

7M (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

7H no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

7H (length) m 0 0 0 0 0 

8a no. 3 0 3 4 1 Map cracking 8a m2 0 5.3 48 58.5 

8b no. 0 0 0 0 0 Scaling 8b m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Polished aggregate 9 m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Popouts 10 no./m2 0 0 0 0 0 

Blowups 11 no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Faulting 12 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder dropoff 13 - - - - - - 

Lane-shoulder separation 14 - - - - - - 

15fL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15fM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15fH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Flexible patch deterioration 

15fH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rL m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM no. 0 0 0 0 0 

15rM m2 0 0 0 0 0 

15rH no. 0 0 0 0 0 

Rigid patch deterioration 

15rH m2 0 0 0 0 0 

16 no. 0 0 0 0 0 Bleeding and pumping 16 m 0 0 0 0 0 

WP-L no. - - - - - 

WP-M no. - - - - - 

WP-H no. - - - - - 

CL-L no. - - - - - 

CL-M no. - - - - - 

Other 

CL-H no. - - - - - 

 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no 0 0 0 0 0 

Total m 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent L - 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Transverse cracking 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 

Total no. 0 2 4 4 4 

Total m 0 2.1 5 9.7 11 

Percent L - 0 100 100 100 100 

Percent M - 0 0 0 0 0 

Spalling of transverse joints 

Percent H - 0 0 0 0 0 
173 

REFERENCES 

1. Hall, K. T., M. I. Darter, T. E. Hoerner, and L. Khazanovich. LTPP Data Analysis Phase I: 

Validation of Guidelines for k Value Selection and Concrete Pavement Performance 

Prediction, Report Number FHWA-RD-96-168. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1996. 
Recycled

Recyclable HRDI-13/08-06(WEB)E