Welcome to ROSA P | Reflective crack mitigation guide for flexible pavements. - 29618 | US Transportation Collection
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Reflective crack mitigation guide for flexible pavements.
  • Published Date:
  • Language:
Filetype[PDF-4.80 MB]

  • Publication/ Report Number:
    IHRB Project TR-641 ; InTrans Project 11-424 ;
  • Resource Type:
  • Geographical Coverage:
  • Format:
  • Abstract:
    Reflective cracks form in pavements when hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlays are placed over jointed and/or severely cracked rigid

    and flexible pavements. In the first part of the research, survival analysis was conducted to identify the most appropriate

    rehabilitation method for composite pavements and to evaluate the influence of different factors on reflective crack development.

    Four rehabilitation methods, including mill and fill, overlay, heater scarification (SCR), and rubblization, were analyzed using

    three performance indicators: reflective cracking, international roughness index (IRI), and pavement condition index (PCI). It was

    found that rubblization can significantly retard reflective cracking development compared to the other three methods. No

    significant difference for PCI was seen among the four rehabilitation methods. Heater scarification showed the lowest survival

    probability for both reflective cracking and IRI, while an overlay resulted in the poorest overall pavement condition based on

    PCI. In addition, traffic level was found not to be a significant factor for reflective cracking development. An increase in overlay

    thickness can significantly delay the propagation of reflective cracking for all four treatments. Soil types in rubblization pavement

    sites were assessed, and no close relationship was found between rubblized pavement performance and subgrade soil condition.

    In the second part of the research, the study objective was to evaluate the modulus and performance of four reflective cracking

    treatments: full rubblization, modified rubblization, crack and seat, and rock interlayer. A total of 16 pavement sites were tested

    by the surface wave method (SWM), and in the first four sites both falling weight deflectometer (FWD) and SWM were

    conducted for a preliminary analysis. The SWM gave close concrete layer moduli compared to the FWD moduli on a

    conventional composite pavement. However, the SWM provided higher moduli for the rubblized concrete layer. After the

    preliminary analysis, another 12 pavement sites were tested by the SWM. The results showed that the crack and seat method

    provided the highest moduli, followed by the modified rubblization method. The full rubblization and the rock interlayer methods

    gave similar, but lower, moduli. Pavement performance surveys were also conducted during the field study. In general, none of

    the pavement sites had rutting problems. The conventional composite pavement site had the largest amount of reflective cracking.

    A moderate amount of reflective cracking was observed for the two pavement sites with full rubblization. Pavements with the

    rock interlayer and modified rubblization treatments had much less reflective cracking. It is recommended that use of the

    modified rubblization and rock interlayer treatments for reflective cracking mitigation are best.

  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Supporting Files:
    No Additional Files
No Related Documents.
You May Also Like:
Submit Feedback >