Problems of Bridge Supporting and Expansion Devices and an Experimental Comparison of the Dynamic Behavior of Rigid and Elastomeric Bearings, HR-105, 1965

The design of satisfactory supporting and expansion devices for highway bridges is a problem which has concerned bridge design engineers for many years. The problems associated with these devices have been emphasized by the large number of short span bridges required by the current expanded highway program of expressways and interstate highways. The initial objectives of this investigation were: (1) To review and make a field study of devices used for the support of bridge superstructures and for provision of floor expansion; (2) To analyze the forces or factors which influence the design and behavior of supporting devices and floor expansion systems; and (3) To ascertain the need for future research particularly on the problems of obtaining more economical and efficient supporting and expansion devices, and determining maximum allowable distance between such devices. The experimental portion was conducted to evaluate one of the possible simple and economical solutions to the problems observed in the initial portion. The investigation reported herein is divided into four major parts or phases as follows: (1) A review of literature; (2) A survey by questionnaire of design practice of a number of state highway departments and consulting firms; (3) Field observation of existing bridges; and, (4) An experimental comparison of the dynamic behavior of rigid and elastomeric bearings.

Investigation of the Effect of Reheating Asphalts on the Test Results, MLR-84-09, 1984

All noncomplying penetration and absolute viscosity results must be verified before being reported. This verification of test results is done by reheating and retesting the identical sample that is suspect. The District Laboratories are required to submit penetration and absolute viscosity correlation samples to the Central Laboratory. These samples are the identical ones tested by the District Laboratories. When the Central laboratory tests these correlation samples they are also considered to be reheated and retested. Reheating a sample will harden the asphalt to some degree and possibly cause a change in the test results. This investigation was conducted to determine how much change in penetration and absolute viscosity could be expected by reheating and retesting asphalt samples.

Effect of Delay in Testing Asphalt Concrete Specimens for Marshall Stability, MLR-86-08, Draft, 1986

The Central Laboratory has been delaying the mix design testing of 2 1/2" X 4" Marshall specimens for stability, until the next day after molding. For example, if the mixes are made and samples molded on Friday a man would have to come in and work on Saturday to test these specimens. The reason for this is that the ASTM-01559 "Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixes Using Marshall Apparatus," states that "the specimens after being molded shall be carefully transferred to a smooth, flat surface and allowed to stand overnight at room temperature, before being weighed, measured and tested." The AASHTO procedure, AASHTO Designation T-245-82 "Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures using Marshall Apparatus," does not say when the specimens shall be tested for stability. The IDOT Lab. Specifications, Test Method No. Iowa 502-8 and test method No. Iowa 506-C "compacting asphaltic concrete by the Marshall Method" and "Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using the Marshall Apparatus," respectively, only state that the specimens shall be cooled before testing. Due to the above conflict in specifications, a number of mix samples were tested, in the Central Lab, for stability on different days. This should furnish enough information to allow us to change the procedure and to test for stability the same day molded, or be able to delay the testing for 3 days or more.

Field Evaluation of Alternative Load Transfer Device Locations in Low Traffic Volume Pavements, TR-420, 2003

In jointed portland cement concrete pavements, dowel bars are typically used to transfer loads between adjacent slabs. A common practice is for designers to place dowel bars at a certain, consistent spacing such that a sufficient number of dowels are available to effectively transfer anticipated loads. In many cases, however, the standards developed today for new highway construction simply do not reflect the design needs of low traffic volume, rural roads. The objective of this research was to evaluate the impact of the number of dowel bars and dowel location on joint performance and ultimately on pavement performance. For this research, test sections were designed, constructed, and tested in actual field service pavement. Test sections were developed to include areas with load transfer assemblies having three and four dowels in the outer wheel path only, areas with no joint reinforcement whatsoever, and full lane dowel basket assemblies as the control. Two adjacent paving projects provided both rural and urban settings and differing base materials. This report documents the approach to implementing the study and provides discussion and suggestions based on the results of the research. The research results indicate that the use of single three or four dowel basket assemblies in the outer wheel path is acceptable for use in low truck volume roads. In the case of roadways with relatively stiff bases such as asphalt treated or stabilized bases, the use of the three dowel bar pattern in the outside wheel path is expected to provide adequate performance over the design life of the pavement. In the case of untreated or granular bases, the results indicate that the use of the three or four dowel bar basket in both wheel paths provides the best long-term solution to load transfer and faulting measurements.

Field Evaluation of Elliptical Steel Dowel Performance, 2006

Joints are always a concern in the construction and long-term performance of concrete pavements. Research has shown that we need some type of positive load transfer across transverse joints. The same research has directed pavement designers to use round dowels spaced at regular intervals across the transverse joint to distribute the vehicle loads both longitudinally and transversely across the joint. The goal is to reduce bearing stresses on the dowels and the two pavement slab edges and erosion of the underlying surface, hence improved long-term joint and pavement structure performance. Road salts cause metal corrosion in doweled joints, excessive bearing stresses hollow dowel ends, and construction processes are associated with cracking pavement at the end of dowels. Dowels are also a cost factor in the pavement costs when joint spacing is reduced to control curling and warping distress in pavements. Designers desire to place adequate numbers of dowels spaced at the proper locations to handle the anticipated loads and bearing stresses for the design life of the pavement. This interim report is the second of three reports on the evaluation of elliptical steel dowels. This report consists of an update on the testing and performance of the various shapes and sizes of dowels. It also documents the results of the first series of performance surveys and draws interim conclusions about the performance of various bar shapes, sizes, spacings, and basket configurations. In addition to the study of elliptical steel dowel performance, fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) are also tested as elliptical dowel material (in contrast to steel) on a section of the highway construction north of the elliptical steel test sections.