Final Report VTRC 10-R3

Virginia Transportation Research Council

research report

Evaluation of Jointed
Reinforced Concrete Pavement
Rehabilitation on I-64 in the Richmond
and Hampton Roads Districts of Virginia
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/10-r3.pdf

BRIAN K. DIEFENDERFER, Ph.D., P.E.

Research Scientist
DAVID W. MOKAREM, Ph.D.
Research Scientist

Virginia Transportation Research Council, 530 Edgemont Road,

Charlottesville, VA 22903 -2454, www.vtrc.net, (434) 293 -1900

1. Report No.:
FHWA/VTRC 10-R3

Standard Title Page - Report on Federally Funded Project

2. Government Accession No.:
3. Recipients Catalog No.:

4. Title and Subtitle:

Evaluation of Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation on I-64 in the
Richmond and Hampton Roads Districts of Virginia

5. Report Date:
September 2009
6. Performing Organization Code:

7. Author(s):
Brian K. Diefenderfer and David W. Mokarem

8. Performing Organization Report No.:

VTRC 10-R3

9. Performing Organization and Address:

Virginia Transportation Research Council
530 Edgemont Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS):

12. Sponsoring Agencies Name and Address:

Virginia Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1401 E. Broad Street
400 North 8th Street, Room 750
Richmond, VA 23219
Richmond, VA 23219-4825

11. Contract or Grant No.:

78546
13. Type of Report and Period Covered:
Final
14. Sponsoring Agency Code:

15. Supplementary Notes:

This project was financed with Part II State Planning and Research (SPR) funds at an estimated cost of $163,000.
16. Abstract:
Beginning in 2004, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) undertook a series of pavement rehabilitation
projects to address deficiencies in three sections of the I-64 corridor between Richmond and Newport News. I-64 serves as the
primary avenue between the Richmond and Hampton Roads metropolitan areas and carries a combined traffic volume ranging
from approximately 20,000 to 90,000 vehicles per day. For nearly 100 mi, this roadway is a four-lane divided facility that was
originally built between the late 1960s and early 1970s as either a jointed reinforced or continuously reinforced concrete
pavement. The existing concrete pavement was rehabilitated using three rehabilitation procedures: two standard approaches and
an experimental approach. The standard rehabilitation procedures included the use of full-depth portland cement concrete (PCC)
patches overlaid by a hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlay and full-depth PCC patches followed by grinding of the pavement surface.
The experimental rehabilitation procedure consisted of the use of full- and partial-depth HMA patches followed by an HMA
overlay. The purpose of this study was to document the initial condition and performance to date of the I-64 project and to
summarize similar work performed by state departments of transportation other than VDOT.
The pavement rehabilitation cost per lane-mile was nearly 20% less for the section of I-64 for which full-depth PCC
patches followed by grinding of the pavement surface was used than for the other two sections. However, the experimental
results do not allow for a comparison to determine any differences in the structural capacity or service life between the sections.
The study recommends that VDOTs Materials Division annually monitor the ride quality of the pavement in the three
rehabilitated sections of I-64 so that the end of service life can be defined as the pavement roughness increases because of
deterioration. Further, the Virginia Transportation Research Council should collaborate with other research organizations to
encourage and pursue full-scale or laboratory-scale accelerated pavement testing to determine the optimum repair materials and
methods for pre-overlay repair of existing PCC pavements and to develop models to quantify the deterioration of an asphalt
overlay placed over an existing concrete pavement because of reflection cracking.

17 Key Words:
18. Distribution Statement:
Pavement rehabilitation, pavement repair, overlay, diamond
No restrictions. This document is available to the public
grinding, patching
through NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161.
19. Security Classif. (of this report):
20. Security Classif. (of this page):
21. No. of Pages:
22. Price:
Unclassified
Unclassified
44
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
Reproduction of completed page authorized

FINAL REPORT
EVALUATION OF JOINTED REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT
REHABILITATION ON I-64 IN THE RICHMOND AND HAMPTON ROADS
DISTRICTS OF VIRGINIA

Brian K. Diefenderfer, Ph.D., P.E.

Research Scientist
David W. Mokarem, Ph.D.
Research Scientist

Virginia Transportation Research Council

(A partnership of the Virginia Department of Transportation
and the University of Virginia since 1948)
In Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Charlottesville, Virginia
September 2009
VTRC 10-R3

DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth
Transportation Board, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a
standard, specification, or regulation. Any inclusion of manufacturer names, trade names, or
trademarks is for identification purposes only and is not to be considered an endorsement.

Copyright 2009 by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

All rights reserved.

ii

ABSTRACT
Beginning in 2004, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) undertook a
series of pavement rehabilitation projects to address deficiencies in three sections of the I-64
corridor between Richmond and Newport News. I-64 serves as the primary avenue between the
Richmond and Hampton Roads metropolitan areas and carries a combined traffic volume ranging
from approximately 20,000 to 90,000 vehicles per day. For nearly 100 mi, this roadway is a
four-lane divided facility that was originally built between the late 1960s and early 1970s as
either a jointed reinforced or continuously reinforced concrete pavement. The existing concrete
pavement was rehabilitated using three rehabilitation procedures: two standard approaches and
an experimental approach. The standard rehabilitation procedures included the use of full-depth
portland cement concrete (PCC) patches overlaid by a hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlay and fulldepth PCC patches followed by grinding of the pavement surface. The experimental
rehabilitation procedure consisted of the use of full- and partial-depth HMA patches followed by
an HMA overlay. The purpose of this study was to document the initial condition and
performance to date of the I-64 project and to summarize similar work performed by state
departments of transportation other than VDOT.
The pavement rehabilitation cost per lane-mile was nearly 20% less for the section of
I-64 for which full-depth PCC patches followed by grinding of the pavement surface was used
than for the other two sections. However, the experimental results do not allow for a comparison
to determine any differences in the structural capacity or service life between the sections.
The study recommends that VDOTs Materials Division annually monitor the ride quality
of the pavement in the three rehabilitated sections of I-64 so that the end of service life can be
defined as the pavement roughness increases because of deterioration. Further, the Virginia
Transportation Research Council should collaborate with other research organizations to
encourage and pursue full-scale or laboratory-scale accelerated pavement testing to determine
the optimum repair materials and methods for pre-overlay repair of existing PCC pavements and
to develop models to quantify the deterioration of an asphalt overlay placed over an existing
concrete pavement because of reflection cracking.

iii

FINAL REPORT
EVALUATION OF JOINTED REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT
REHABILITATION ON I-64 IN THE RICHMOND AND HAMPTON ROADS
DISTRICTS OF VIRGINIA
Brian K. Diefenderfer, Ph.D., P.E.
Research Scientist
David W. Mokarem, Ph.D.
Research Scientist

INTRODUCTION
I-64 serves as the primary avenue between the Richmond and Hampton Roads
metropolitan areas in Virginia and carries a combined traffic volume ranging from approximately
20,000 to 90,000 vehicles per day. The roadway is a vital link for vacationers traveling to
Virginias beaches, shipping containers going to and from the Norfolk-area ports, and as a
hurricane evacuation route for the Hampton Roads region. For nearly 100 mi, this roadway is a
four-lane divided facility that was originally built between the late 1960s and early 1970s as
either a jointed reinforced or continuously reinforced concrete pavement.
A study by the Virginia Department of Transportations (VDOTs) Materials Division
(VDOT, 2002) showed portions of the pavement on I-64 between Richmond and Newport News
to be in poor condition and requiring maintenance at an ever-increasing rate. Based on
information generated from this study, various rehabilitation methods were developed to extend
the life of the pavement. After internal discussions with representatives of the asphalt and
concrete paving industries in Virginia, three methods for rehabilitating the jointed reinforced
concrete pavement (JRCP) (two methods in the Richmond District and one method in the
Hampton Roads District) were recommended to provide a pavement service life of 10 years. The
rehabilitation methods were performed in three sections as follows:
1. Section 1 (MP 195.67-200.59): full- and partial-depth hot-mix asphalt (HMA) patches
with a 5-in HMA overlay
2. Section 2 (MP 200.59-205.40): full-depth portland cement concrete (PCC) patches
with a 3.5-in HMA overlay
3. Section 3 (MP 237.20-253.60): full-depth PCC patches with diamond grinding.
The processes used for Sections 2 and 3 are relatively common and have a history of
performing well in Virginia and surrounding states. The materials used for patching proposed
for Section 1, however, have not been previously used together for this type of application in
Virginia. The approach of using full- and partial-depth HMA patches has worked well for

continuously reinforced concrete pavements; however, the performance with JRCP in Virginia is
not known. In addition, the performance of these materials cannot be modeled adequately with
current pavement design procedures used in Virginia (VDOT, 2000).
The materials recommended for HMA patching in Section 1 are an HMA mixture having
a 19 mm or a 25 mm nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) and using a performance grade
(PG) 70-22 binder. These mixtures are designated by VDOT as IM-19.0D and BM-25.0D,
respectively. The HMA overlay consisted of three layers. The first layer, a leveling course, used
a 1.5-in-thick surface mixture with an NMAS of 12.5 mm and using a polymer-modified PG 7622 binder. This mixture is designated by VDOT as SM-12.5(M). The second layer placed was a
2.0-in-thick stone-matrix asphalt (SMA) intermediate mixture with an NMAS of 19.0 mm and
having a PG 76-22 binder. This mixture is designated by VDOT as SMA-19.0 (76-22). The
third layer, the wearing surface, is a 1.5-in-thick SMA surface mixture with an NMAS of 12.5
mm and having a PG 76-22 binder. This mixture is designated by VDOT as SMA-12.5 (76-22).
The material recommended for patching in Sections 2 and 3 is a PCC requiring a 2,000
lb/in2 compressive strength prior to the return of traffic. The HMA overlay in Section 2
consisted of two layers. The first layer placed was a 2.0-in-thick layer of SMA-19.0 (76-22); the
second layer placed was a 1.5-in-thick SMA-12.5 (76-22) wearing surface. The repair work in
Section 3 consisted of removing the existing pavement where the existing joints were in poor
condition. These areas were then patched with PCC (having dowel bars inserted prior to
placement of the patch material), and then the final surface of the entire pavement was diamond
ground.
The pavement in the three test sections was compared to a defined level of acceptable
deterioration at 10 years of service. The acceptable level of deterioration for Sections 1 and 2
was defined as follows:

average International Roughness Index (IRI) less than 110 in/lane-mile

no 0.1-mi section with an IRI greater than 170 in/mi
average rut depth of less than 0.5 in per wheel path per mile
no 0.1-mi section with a rut depth greater than 1 in per wheel path
no more than 15 Severity Level 3 reflective cracks per lane-mile as defined by VDOT
(2007a).

The acceptable level of deterioration for Section 3 was defined as follows:

IRI of less than 110 in/lane-mile

no 0.1-mi section with an IRI greater than 170 in/mi
no more than 15 deteriorated transverse joints or asphalt patches located at a joint per
lane-mile requiring Type I or II patches
no more than 15 deteriorated concrete patches per lane-mile with a condition of
Severity Level 3 as defined by VDOT (2007a).

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this study was to summarize previous work performed by departments of
transportation (DOTs) other than VDOT and to document the initial condition and performance
to date of an existing JRCP in Virginia that was rehabilitated using three rehabilitation
procedures: two standard approaches and one experimental approach. The standard
rehabilitation procedures included the use of full-depth PCC patches overlaid by an HMA
overlay and full-depth PCC patches followed by grinding of the pavement surface. The
experimental rehabilitation procedure consisted of full- and partial-depth HMA patches followed
by an HMA overlay.
The scope of the project encompassed the three sections of I-64 in VDOTs Richmond
and Hampton Roads districts previously enumerated.

METHODS
Three tasks were conducted to achieve the objectives of this study:
1. A literature review was conducted to identify previous work performed by DOTs
other than VDOT.
2. The initial condition of the three sections of I-64 was evaluated primarily by ride
quality, skid resistance, overlay thickness, time required to perform the rehabilitation,
and cost per lane-mile rehabilitated.
3. An analysis of the traffic volume and truck loading for each of the three sections was
conducted. Through use of this information, a determination can be made about the
traffic loading carried by each section during any future analysis.

Literature Review
The literature review was conducted by searching various transportation engineeringrelated databases such as: Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) bibliographic
database, the catalog of Transportation Libraries (TLCat), the Catalog of Worldwide Libraries
(WorldCat), and the Transportation Research Board Research in Progress (RiP) and Research
Needs Statements (RNS) databases.

Evaluation of Initial Condition of the Three Sections of I-64

Pavement Smoothness
Pavement smoothness testing was conducted using an inertial profiler equipped with
lasers and accelerometers. The profilers collected longitudinal profile data in accordance with

ASTM E950, Standard Test Method for Measuring the Longitudinal Profile of Traveled Surfaces
with an Accelerometer Established Inertial Profiling Reference. The profile data were then used
to calculate an IRI value, giving a measure of the roughness of the longitudinal profile. The IRI
values were calculated in accordance with AASHTO PP 37-04, Determination of International
Roughness Index (IRI) to Quantify Roughness of Pavements.
Skid Resistance
Skid resistance testing was conducted on the pavement sections with a lock-wheeled
friction unit (ASTM E-274) using a smooth test tire (ASTM E524). The tests were conducted
before and after repairs to determine the effects of repair on the skid resistance of the sections.
Overlay Thickness
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) was used to assess the layer thickness of the HMA
overlay placed on Sections 1 and 2. This technique has been shown to be an effective means for
nondestructively determining the pavement layer thickness (Maser, 2002; Maser and Scullion,
1992). As the structural capacity of a pavement section depends on the thickness of the
pavement, it could be expected that a thinner pavement would not carry as many vehicles as a
thicker pavement, all else being equal. Therefore, it was considered important to determine the
overlay thickness in Sections 1 and 2 to determine if the thickness of any areas of pavement was
significantly different. If so, such areas would be candidates for early deterioration and should
be monitored. GPR testing was not performed in Section 3 as it would be unlikely that the areas
patched with PCC could be distinguished from the surrounding original PCC pavement.
The GPR system used in this study consisted of a 2.0 GHz air-launched horn antenna and
a SIR-20 controller unit, both manufactured by Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. The antenna
was mounted on a survey vehicle as shown in Figure 1. The pulse rate of the antenna was

Figure 1. VDOTs Air-Launched GPR System

maintained at a constant rate of 2 scans per foot, regardless of the vehicle speed, using an
integrated distance measuring instrument. At each test site, the GPR testing was conducted at
the prevailing speed of the facility. All data were processed by the software RADAN (version
6.5.3.0) developed by Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. The software allows the user to view
the collected data and identify the layer boundaries. The thickness to each layer boundary is
automatically calculated.
Time Required to Perform the Rehabilitation
The construction schedule was used to determine the length of time required to complete
the portions of the project that related to the pavement rehabilitation operations.
Cost per Lane-mile Rehabilitated
The average cost per lane-mile to perform the pavement rehabilitation work was
calculated based on project payment information provided by VDOT district personnel.
Analysis of Traffic Volume and Truck Loading
The traffic volume and truck loading data were complied from VDOT-published traffic
information.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Literature Review
Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation
Determining the appropriate rehabilitation treatment for a jointed concrete pavement is a
question that is not unique to Virginia. The literature contains many studies of field trials
performed by state and provincial DOTs to determine the service life of various concrete
pavement rehabilitation options (Hall et al., 1991; Kazmierowski and Sturm, 1991; McGhee,
1979; Pierce, 1994; Von Holdt and Scullion, 2005; Wen et al., 2006). These rehabilitation
options range from minor patching to patching plus overlay to complete reconstruction. The
rehabilitation intensity level, overlay thickness, overlay material type (whether asphalt or
concrete), and type of patching material (asphalt or concrete) are all potential variables.
Hall et al. (1991) investigated the survival of asphalt overlays on interstate pavements in
Illinois. They investigated 213 sections where asphalt overlays (ranging from 1.5 to 6.0 in thick)
were placed on JRCP. The study reported that asphalt overlay of existing PCC pavements is the
most common rehabilitation method used in the United States. Further, the predominant causes
of overlay failure are reflection cracking at the transverse joints, localized distress caused by Dcracking (an issue where water freezes in certain types of porous aggregates, not considered to be
a problem in Virginia) in the underlying concrete pavement, rutting in the overlay, and
deterioration of patches and expansion joints. The authors stated that the use of asphalt patching

as a means of pre-overlay repair often results in early deterioration of the asphalt overlay. The
study discusses reflection cracking as a phenomenon caused by a concentration of strain energy
in the asphalt overlay from vehicular load- or temperature-induced movement at cracks or slabs
in the concrete below. Therefore, a reduction in the movement across a crack or a joint is an
effective means for reducing the development of strain in the asphalt overlay. The study further
stated that full-depth dowelled PCC repairs at joints and working cracks is an effective means for
reducing the occurrence of reflection cracking. Further, improving subsurface drainage,
repairing voids to improve slab support, restoring load transfer, and increasing the overlay
thickness are also effective in reducing or delaying the occurrence of reflection cracks.
More contemporary studies have involved other techniques to minimize the occurrence of
reflection cracking, including the use of reinforcement (Brown et al., 2001; Kim and Buttlar,
2002), geosynthetics (Buttlar et al., 2000; Button and Lytton, 2007; Elseifi and Al-Qadi, 2005),
granular interlayers (Kim and Buttlar, 2002; Titi et al., 2003), and slab-fracturing techniques
(Freeman, 2002; Sebesta and Scullion, 2007). These treatments vary in their effectiveness at
delaying or reducing reflective cracking, but inevitably, reflection cracking still occurs.
Hall et al. (1991) also stated that reflection cracking can have a considerable (often
controlling) influence on the life of an asphalt overlay on top of a JRCP. Reflection cracking is
detrimental as it negatively impacts the pavement smoothness and provides an avenue for
moisture to enter the pavement system. The study recommended sealing as an effective
procedure for reducing moisture intrusion and as a means for retarding their progression from
low to higher severity levels.
Wen et al. (2006) investigated the development of transverse reflection cracking in
asphalt overlays placed on existing concrete pavements by evaluating three pre-overlay methods
of repair: doweled full-depth concrete patches, non-doweled full-depth concrete patches, and
full-depth asphalt patches. The results of this study showed that the rate of transverse crack
development was lowest for the doweled concrete patches and highest for the asphalt patches.
The study also developed a regression equation describing the relationship between transverse
crack development rate and overlay thickness. The regression equation suggested that overlays
greater than approximately 3 in offer only a marginal improvement in reducing or delaying the
transverse reflection cracking development rate with increasing overlay thickness.
Gharaibeh and Darter (2003) conducted a probabilistic study of the service life of more
than 4,000 directional miles of original and rehabilitated pavements in Illinois. Their study
seems to support the marginal improvement in additional thickness reported by Wen et al.
(2006). Gharaibeh and Darter concluded that concrete pavements should be programmed for
overlay before their condition requires that a thick overlay be placed. The study concluded a
thick overlay placed over a severely deteriorated pavement has a load-carrying capacity similar
to or less than that of a thin-overlay placed over a pavement in better condition.
Kazmierowski and Sturm (1991) reviewed a concrete pavement rehabilitation project in
Ontario, Canada. The project consisted of full- and partial-depth concrete patching followed by
diamond grinding in one direction and an unbonded concrete overlay in the other direction. The
full-depth repaired areas included dowel bars to transfer loading from the concrete patches to the

existing concrete pavement. The authors noted that previous repair techniques included full- and
partial-depth asphalt patching followed by an asphalt overlay of varying thickness. They stated
that this repair technique was effective in the short term but that over time, the asphalt patches
began to distort causing a reduction in the pavement smoothness. The authors concluded that
concrete patching and concrete overlay repair techniques were effective in increasing the
structural capacity of the pavement but that long-term monitoring was needed for confirmation.
The performance of diamond-ground pavements was studied by Rao et al. (1999).
Diamond (or surface) grinding is a process where the surface of a concrete pavement is ground
smooth to reduce any roughness that occurs at faulted joint locations. As it does not increase the
load-carrying capacity of a concrete pavement or restore sub-slab support, it is often used in
conjunction with other repair techniques such as dowelled full-depth repairs or slab undersealing (a process where grout is injected underneath the slab to fill any voids and restore
support) to provide a pavement surface that has an IRI nearly equal to that of an HMA overlay.
The authors suggested that a rehabilitation treatment more substantial than diamond grinding
(such as overlay or reconstruction) should be considered if a pavement is structurally deficient.
When comparing the surface texture between diamond-ground and tined surfaces, the authors
stated that the ground surface texture was superior to tined surfaces in that accident rates were
shown to be significantly lower in both wet and dry conditions for one subset of the data. The
authors also conducted a survival analysis that showed a high probability that a diamond-ground
pavement would last at least 10 years before another diamond grinding cycle was required. The
analysis showed that the probability of failure before 8 and 10 years was less than approximately
2% and 12%, respectively. A subsequent diamond grinding might be needed because of either
the return of faulting or a reduction in surface texture over time. The authors concluded that
diamond grinding is effective at extending the service life of concrete pavements and that so long
as the pavement structural capacity is sufficient, its life may be extended even further by multiple
cycles (up to three or four) of diamond grinding.
Hall et al. (2002) studied the effectiveness of rehabilitation treatments on flexible and
rigid pavements using data from the long-term pavement program (LTPP). The study offered
several conclusions regarding rehabilitation of pavements using various treatment types and
intensity levels. The study concluded that concrete pavements that received surface grinding and
non-overlay repair tended to be smoother over the long term than pavements that were not
ground but also received non-overlay repair. The average initial post-treatment IRI of pavements
that received overlay repair was approximately 70 in/mi versus an average initial post-treatment
IRI of pavements that received surface grinding and non-overlay repair of 66 in/mi. The study
compared the development of roughness over time for pavement sections that received grinding
and non-overlay repair with sections that received overlay repair versus control sections that
received no repair at all. The study showed that those sections that received grinding and nonoverlay repair approached the roughness of the control sections faster than those sections that
received overlay repair.
Pavement Smoothness
Pavement smoothness was defined by McGhee and Gillespie (2007) as the absence of
bumps and dips in the riding surface of a pavement. To the traveling public, a lack of pavement

smoothness may result in a decreased ride quality, minor annoyance, or reduction in fuel
economy (Gillespie and McGhee, 2007). Smith et al. (1997) stated that rough pavements can
pose safety concerns, disrupt the flow of traffic, reduce optimum travel speeds, and increase
vehicle wear and may increase fuel consumption.
The benefits of smoother pavements have been documented by many studies. Smith et
al. (1997) studied more than 200 pavement sections and reported that initial pavement
smoothness had a significant effect in extending pavement life for 80% of new construction
(both flexible and rigid pavements) and for 70% of asphalt overlay projects. In addition,
pavements that were initially smoother were more likely to remain smoother throughout their
service life. An analysis of fuel economy was provided by Sime and Ashmore (2000) during
testing at the WesTrack accelerated pavement test facility in Nevada. The authors showed that
when comparing the effects before and after a pavement rehabilitation on the test track, a 10%
reduction in IRI reduced truck fuel consumption by 4.5%. McGhee and Gillespie (2006) studied
the effects of VDOTs use of paving contracts with a smoothness specification. Their analysis
showed that projects including a smoothness specification were on average 8.8 in/mi smoother
than projects that did not include the specification. The authors suggested that this increase in
smoothness should allow VDOT to delay rehabilitation to a later date, offering potentially
significant cost savings to VDOT.

Initial Condition of I-64 Pavement Sections

Pavement Smoothness
As part of the analysis, pavement smoothness testing was conducted on all of the sections
before and after repairs. Each lane was tested individually, and IRI values were calculated for
each 0.01 mi. The IRI data for each lane were then averaged for the entire section and for each
0.1 mi. The 0.1-mi average was calculated to determine the number of 0.1-mi segments with an
average IRI greater than 170 in/mi. The associated standard deviations were also calculated for
each lane to determine variability.
A frequency distribution analysis of the IRI data was performed for each lane of each
section. The results for each lane are presented in Appendix A. The frequency percentage was
calculated for each lane according to IRI values ranging from 0 to more than 200. The IRI for
each section was compared to the following limit of acceptable deterioration after 10 years:

average IRI less than 110 in/lane-mile

no 0.1-mi segment with an IRI greater than 170 in/mi.

An analysis was performed using these limits to determine the condition of each section before
and after repairs.

Section 1
Section 1 was a portion of I-64 in Henrico County. The section consists of three lanes in
each the eastbound and westbound directions with the right-hand lane designated as Lane 0; the
milepost locations for each lane are shown in Table 1. Profile testing was conducted on July 15,
2004, and June 17, 2008. Table 2 presents the data for the eastbound lanes, and Table 3 presents
the data for the westbound lanes.
After repairs, the average IRI improved for all lanes in both directions. For the eastbound
lanes, the average IRI improved 61%, 63%, and 51% for lanes 0, 1, and 2, respectively. For the
westbound lanes, the average IRI values improved 59%, 58%, and 46% for lanes 0, 1, and 2,
respectively.
Based on the 10-year limits in the original proposal, the IRIs for all lanes in Section 1
were below the 110 in/lane-mile average IRI. Lane 2 in the eastbound direction had one 0.1-mi
segment with an IRI greater than 170 in/mi.

Lane
Lane 0
Lane 1
Lane 2

Lane
Lane 0

Lane 1

Lane 2

Lane
Lane 0

Lane 1

Lane 2

Table 1. Milepost Locations for Section 1

Eastbound
Westbound
Mileposts
Lane
Mileposts
195.67 to 197.43
Lane 0
197.72 to 195.67
195.67 to 200.59
Lane 1
200.59 to 195.67
195.67 to 200.59
Lane 2
200.59 to 195.67
Table 2. Results of Pavement Smoothness Testing: Eastbound, Section 1
07/15/2004
06/17/2008
Average IRI Value
175
68
Standard Deviation
67.3
54.1
0.1-Mi Segments > 170
11
0
Average IRI Value
157
58
Standard Deviation
60.2
32.9
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
15
1
Average IRI Value
124
61
Standard Deviation
47.4
28.5
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
1
0
Table 3. Results of Pavement Smoothness Testing: Westbound, Section 1
07/15/2004
06/17/2008
Average IRI Value
176
73
Standard Deviation
70.6
20.8
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
11
0
Average IRI Value
147
62
Standard Deviation
52.7
30.9
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
12
0
Average IRI Value
121
65
Standard Deviation
42.6
34.9
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
2
0

Section 2
Section 2 was a portion of I-64 in Henrico and New Kent counties. The section consisted
of two lanes each in the eastbound and westbound directions with the right-hand lane designated
as lane 1; the milepost locations for each lane are presented in Table 4. Profile testing was
conducted on July 15, 2004, and June 17, 2008. Table 5 presents the data for the eastbound
lanes, and Table 6 presents the data for the westbound lanes.
After repairs, the average IRI improved for all lanes. For the eastbound lanes, the
average IRI improved 66% and 50% for lanes 1 and 2, respectively. For the westbound lanes,
the average IRI improved 54% and 31% for lanes 1 and 2, respectively.
Based on the 10-year limits in the original proposal, the IRIs for all lanes in Section 1
were below the 110 in/lane-mile average IRI. However, lane 2 in the westbound direction had
one 0.1-mi segment for which the IRI was greater than 170 in/mi.

Lane
Lane 1
Lane 2

Lane
Lane 1

Lane 2

Lane
Lane 1

Lane 2

Table 4. Milepost Locations for Section 2

Eastbound
Westbound
Mileposts
Lane
Mileposts
200.59 to 205.40
Lane 1
205.40 to 200.59
200.59 to 205.40
Lane 2
205.40 to 200.59
Table 5. Results of Pavement Smoothness Testing: Eastbound, Section 2
07/15/2004
06/17/2008
Average IRI Value
172
58
Standard Deviation
63.1
32.9
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
23
0
Average IRI Value
117
59
Standard Deviation
42.1
26.6
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
1
0
Table 6. Results of Pavement Smoothness Testing: Westbound, Section 2
07/15/2004
06/17/2008
Average IRI Value
164
76
Standard Deviation
57.4
32.4
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
19
0
Average IRI Value
111
77
Standard Deviation
46.5
35.5
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
2
1

Section 3
Section 3 was a portion of I-64 in York County. The section consists of two lanes in each
the eastbound and westbound directions with the right-hand lane designated as Lane 1; the
milepost locations for each lane are presented in Table 7. Profile testing was conducted on April
13, 2004, and July 1, 2008. Table 8 presents the data for the eastbound lanes, and Table 9
presents the data for the westbound lanes.

10

Lane
Lane 1
Lane 2

Lane
Lane 1

Lane 2

Lane
Lane 1

Lane 2

Table 7. Milepost Locations for Section 3

Eastbound
Westbound
Mileposts
Lane
Mileposts
237.20 to 253.60
Lane 1
253.60 to 237.20
237.20 to 253.60
Lane 2
253.60 to 237.20
Table 8. Results of Pavement Smoothness Testing: Eastbound, Section 3
04/13/2004
07/01/2008
Average IRI Value
123
84
Standard Deviation
44.3
26.1
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
32
0
Average IRI Value
108
81
Standard Deviation
41.7
26.9
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
6
0
Table 9. Results of Pavement Smoothness Testing: Westbound, Section 3
04/13/2004
07/01/2008
Average IRI Value
149
88
Standard Deviation
81.1
24.8
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
29
0
Average IRI Value
116
85
Standard Deviation
60.1
27.5
0.1-Mile Segments > 170
13
0

After repairs, the average IRI improved for all lanes. For the eastbound lanes, the
average IRI values improved 32% and 25% for lanes 1 and 2, respectively. For the westbound
lanes, the average IRI values improved 41% and 27% for lanes 1 and 2, respectively.
Based on the 10-year limits in the original proposal, the IRIs of all lanes in Section 1
were below the 110 in/lane-mile average IRI. None of the lanes in either direction had a 0.1-mi
segment with an IRI greater than 170 in/mi.
Summary of IRI Results
Sections 1 and 2. Repairs for Sections 1 and 2 involved patching and asphalt overlays.
Section 1 had a 5-in asphalt overlay, and Section 2 had a 3.5-in asphalt overlay. From the IRI
data obtained before and after repairs were performed on each section, the data show that the
before-repair average IRI values were highest for lane 0, followed by lane 1 and then lane 2.
Following repairs, the average IRI values were still highest in lane 0 followed by lane 1 and then
lane 2. Table 10 presents the average IRI data for each lane before and after repairs.
The data show that there are larger differences in average IRI values according to lane
type before the repairs were performed on Sections 1 and 2 as compared to after-repair average
IRI values. Before repairs, lane 0 and lane 1 had significantly higher average IRI values than
lane 2. After repairs, the average IRI values for all lanes were within 10% of one another.
Section 3. Repairs for Section 3 involved patching and then diamond grinding. Table 11
presents the average IRI data for each lane before and after repairs.

11

Lane/Section

Table 10. Average Pavement Smoothness: Sections 1 and 2

Avg. IRI (Before)
Avg. IRI (After)

Lane 0
Eastbound Section 1
Westbound Section 1
Average
Lane 1
Eastbound Section 1
Westbound Section 1
Eastbound Section 2
Westbound Section 2
Average
Lane 2
Eastbound Section 1
Westbound Section 1
Eastbound Section 2
Westbound Section 2
Average

Lane/Section
Lane 1
Eastbound Section 3, Lane 1
Westbound Section 3, Lane 1
Average
Lane 2
Eastbound Section 3, Lane 2
Westbound Section 3, Lane 2
Average

175
176
176

68
73
71

157
147
172
164
160

58
62
58
76
64

124
121
117
111
118

61
65
59
77
66

Table 11. Average Pavement Smoothness: Section 3

Avg. IRI (Before)
Avg. IRI (After)
123
149
136

84
88
86

108
116
112

81
85
83

The data show that there are larger differences in average IRI values according to lane
type before the repairs were performed on Section 3 as compared to after-repair average IRI
values. Before repairs, the average IRI value for the travel lane was about 18% higher than the
average IRI value for the passing lane. After repairs, the average IRI values for the travel and
passing lanes were within 3% of each other.
Skid Resistance
Table 12 presents the average skid resistance for the repair sections before and after
repairs were conducted. These results are the average skid resistance of the entire section tested.
Sections 1 and 2 were tested together because they abut each other and an average was calculated
for the entire section.
Section
Sections 1 & 2 Eastbound
Sections 1 & 2 Westbound
Section 3 Eastbound
Section 3 Westbound

Table 12. Average Skid Resistance

Before
45.3
42.9
40.8
47.2

12

After
42.3
46.6
39.3
41.9

The results from Table 12 show that the average skid resistance values for all sections
changed very little after repairs were conducted. The lowest average skid resistance value was
39.3, which was well above the recommended trigger value of 20 (Mahone and Sherwood,
1996).
Overlay Thickness
GPR was used to survey Sections 1 and 2 to determine the HMA overlay thickness.
Figure 2 shows an example of the results for a portion of the eastbound direction of lane 1 from
Laburnum Avenue to Airport Road (approximately Milepost 195.6 to 197.8). Figure 2 shows
three bridges that are encountered over this segment: Laburnum Avenue, Oakleys Lane, and
Airport Road.
Figures B.1 through B.10 in Appendix B show the results of the GPR survey for the
eastbound and westbound directions of Sections 1 and 2. The data are shown for lanes 0, 1, and
2. By visual inspection of Figures B.1 through B.10, it can be seen that although the majority of
the overlay is equal to or greater than the as-designed thickness, there are some segments that
show an overlay that was thinner than expected (coring was not performed to confirm the GPR
survey results).
Figures B.3, B.5, B.7, and B.9 in Appendix B show a deep repair at approximately
Milepost 199.2 in both directions of lanes 1 and 2 in Section 1. It is unclear if this action was the
result of a repair from a previous project or the current rehabilitation effort. In addition, certain
figures in Appendix B show that the HMA overlay became much thinner before and after certain
bridges. This is not an unexpected occurrence; at several bridges within the project limits the
overlay is tapered to where there is no overlay directly underneath the bridge because of
concerns of vertical clearance.

Figure 2. GPR Results From Laburnum Avenue to Airport Road (Eastbound, Lane 1). The approximate
locations of these structures are indicated by vertical lines; a solid vertical line indicates I-64 is carried over
another roadway; a dashed vertical line indicates that I-64 passes beneath another roadway.

13

Time Required to Perform the Rehabilitation

The construction schedules for Sections 1 and 2 (combined) and Section 3 were assessed
to determine the time required to perform the pavement rehabilitation. Sections 1 and 2 were
considered together as the contract documents grouped these two sections into one construction
project. Section 1 is in a section of I-64 that consists of 6 lanes (3 in each direction). By
multiplying the number of lanes by the project length, the number of lane-miles rehabilitated was
calculated to be 29.52. The number of lane-miles for Section 2 (having 2 lanes per direction)
was similarly calculated to be 19.24. The sum of the lane-miles for Sections 1 and 2 was
calculated as 48.76. The number of lane-miles for Section 3 (also having 2 lanes per direction)
was calculated to be 65.60.
Figure 3 shows the construction schedule for pavement-related items occurring in
Sections 1 and 2. The figure shows that this construction started during the last week of April
2005 and was completed during the last week of November 2007; the resulting duration was 31
months. Figure 4 shows the construction schedule for pavement-related items occurring in
Section 3. The figure shows that this construction started during the first week of May 2005 and
was completed during the last week of November 2007; the resulting duration was slightly less
than 31 months. By comparing Figures 3 and 4 it can be seen that the project durations were
nearly identical.
Cost per Lane-mile Rehabilitated
Since the rehabilitation work completed in Sections 1 and 2 and in Section 3 was of
differing lengths, a direct comparison of project costs was not valid. Therefore, a comparison of
project costs based on the number of lane-miles was required. The project costs (including any
adjustments for asphalt materials) for Sections 1 and 2 were $25,813,909 and Section 3 was
$27,622,656. Given a lane mileage of 48.76 for Sections 1 and 2 and a lane mileage of 65.60 for
Section 3, the cost per lane-mile to rehabilitate the pavement in Sections 1 and 2 and Section 3
was calculated to be $529,407 and $421,077, respectively, as shown in Table 13.
From Table 13 it can be seen that the cost to rehabilitate Sections 1 and 2 was
approximately $108,000 per lane-mile more than the cost to rehabilitate Section 3. Table 13,
however, does not indicate if the treatments performed in Sections 1 and 2 versus those
performed in Section 3 resulted in pavements with a similar structural capacity or service life.

Traffic Volume and Truck Loading

The traffic volume, expressed as annual average daily traffic (AADT), is routinely
collected by VDOT on segments of the interstate. Tables 14 and 15 show the 2007 AADT for
Sections 1, 2, and 3 in the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively (VDOT, 2007b). As
shown, the single-direction AADT ranged from 17,000 to 48,000 vehicles per day and the
percent trucks varied between 5% and 14%.

14

Figure 3. Construction Schedule for Sections 1 and 2 (Mileposts 195-205)

15

Figure 4. Construction Schedule for Section 3 (Mileposts 239-255)

16

Section
1 and 2
3

Distance, mi
9.73
16.4

Table 13. Cost per Lane-mile Rehabilitated

Project Cost (including
Lane Mileage
asphalt adjustment), $
48.76
25,813,909
65.60
27,622,656

Cost per Lane-mile, $

529,407
421,077

Table 14. 2007 Traffic Volume and Percent Trucks for Eastbound I-64
Location
%
Overall SingleSection
%
Unit
No.
AADTa Trucks Trucks
From
To
1
Laburnum Avenue
SR 156, Airport Road
24,000
6
2
SR 156, Airport Road
I-295
17,000
10
3
2
I-295
SR 33, Bottoms Bridge
34,000
10
2
3
SR 143, Camp Perry
SR 199 East, Humelsine
Road
Parkway
30,000
10
3
SR 199 East, Humelsine
US 60, Pocahontas Trail /
Parkway
SR 143, Merrimac Trail
40,000
10
2
US 60, Pocahontas Trail / SR 143 Merrimac Trail
SR 143, Merrimac Trail
38,000
5
2
SR 143 Merrimac Trail
SR 238, Yorktown Road
38,000
5
2
SR 238, Yorktown Road
SR 105, Ft Eustis
Boulevard
42,000
5
2
SR 105, Ft Eustis
SR 143, Jefferson Avenue
Boulevard
46,000
5
2
a
AADT = annual average daily traffic (vehicles/day).
Table 15. 2007 Traffic volume and percent trucks for Westbound I-64
Location
%
Overall SingleSection
%
Unit
No.
AADT a Trucks Trucks
From
To
1
Laburnum Avenue
SR 156, Airport Road
25000
5
2
SR 156, Airport Road
I-295
17000
9
3
2
I-295
SR 33, Bottoms Bridge
36000
10
2
3
SR 143, Camp Perry
SR 199 East, Humelsine
Road
Parkway
30000
14
2
SR 199 East, Humelsine
US 60, Pocahontas Trail /
Parkway
SR 143, Merrimac Trail
38000
5
1
US 60, Pocahontas Trail / SR 143 Merrimac Trail
SR 143, Merrimac Trail
40000
5
1
SR 143 Merrimac Trail
SR 238, Yorktown Road
40000
5
1
SR 238, Yorktown Road
SR 105, Ft Eustis
Boulevard
43000
5
2
SR 105, Ft Eustis
SR 143, Jefferson Avenue
Boulevard
48000
5
2
a
AADT = annual average daily traffic (vehicles/day).

%
TractorTrailer
Trucks
4
7
8
7
8
3
3
3
3

%
TractorTrailer
Trucks
3
6
8
12
4
4
4
3
3

From the AADT and percent truck data shown in Tables 14 and 15, the number of trucks
per day can be determined. VDOTs current design procedure uses the equivalent single-axle
load (ESAL) quantity to determine the amount of pavement damage produced by various
vehicles (VDOT, 2000). Given that the ESAL factor assigned to trucks is several thousand times
greater than that for passenger vehicles, it is not uncommon to consider only the number of

17

trucks and not the entire AADT when assessing the number of loads carried by a particular
pavement.
The number of trucks for each section, shown in Tables 16 and 17 for the eastbound and
westbound directions, respectively, was determined using the AADT and percent truck data
shown in Tables 14 and 15. The average number of trucks in each section was weighted by

Table 16. Weighted Average Number of Trucks for Eastbound I-64 (Based on 2007 AADT)
Location
Weighted
Weighted
Average
Average No.
Link
No. of
of TractorSection
Length, Single-Unit
Trailer
No.
mi
Trucks
Trucks
From
To
1
Laburnum Avenue
SR 156, Airport Road
1.88
516
1,163
SR 156, Airport Road
I-295
4.07
2
I-295
SR 33, Bottoms Bridge
4.14
680
2,720
3
SR 143, Camp Perry
SR 199 East, Humelsine
3.44
878
1,720
Road
Parkway
SR 199 East,
US 60, Pocahontas Trail / 1.62
Humelsine Parkway
SR 143, Merrimac Trail
US 60, Pocahontas
SR 143 Merrimac Trail
2.63
Trail / SR 143,
Merrimac Trail
SR 143 Merrimac Trail SR 238, Yorktown Road
1.62
SR 238, Yorktown
SR 105, Ft Eustis
2.04
Road
Boulevard
SR 105, Ft Eustis
SR 143, Jefferson Avenue 5.03
Boulevard
Table 17. Weighted Average Number of Trucks for Westbound I-64 (based on 2007 AADT)
Weighted
Weighted
Location
Link
Average
Average No.
Section
Length,
No. of
of TractorNo.
mi
Single-Unit
Trailer
From
To
Trucks
Trucks
1
Laburnum Avenue
SR 156, Airport Road
1.99
525
979
SR 156, Airport Road
I-295
3.62
2
I-295
SR 33, Bottoms Bridge
4.07
720
2,880
3
SR 143, Camp Perry
SR 199 East, Humelsine
3.31
712
2,071
Road
Parkway
SR 199 East,
US 60, Pocahontas Trail / 1.41
Humelsine Parkway
SR 143, Merrimac Trail
US 60, Pocahontas
SR 143 Merrimac Trail
2.72
Trail / SR 143,
Merrimac Trail
SR 143 Merrimac Trail SR 238, Yorktown Road
1.34
SR 238, Yorktown
SR 105, Ft Eustis
2.32
Road
Boulevard
SR 105, Ft Eustis
SR 143, Jefferson Avenue 5.22
Boulevard

18

multiplying the link length by the AADT by the percent trucks for each link, summing the values
in each section, and then dividing by the total length of each section. As Tables 16 and 17 show,
the weighted average number of trucks varied significantly among the three sections, and any
future analysis of the service life of these three sections should be based on the number of trucks
carried rather than the length of time in-service.

Summary of Findings
Literature Review

Pre-overlay repair of existing PCC pavements by using PCC patching is a preferable method
to using HMA patching, and PCC grinding is a viable rehabilitation alternative for jointed
concrete pavements.

Reflection cracking is the predominant mode of failure for an asphalt overlay placed on top
of a jointed concrete pavement.

Overlays thicker than 3 in offer only a marginal improvement in reducing the transverse
reflection cracking development rate with increasing overlay thickness.

For jointed concrete pavements receiving grinding and non-overlay repair as a method of
rehabilitation, the pavement smoothness decreased faster than for jointed concrete pavements
that received overlay repair as a method of rehabilitation.

Smoother pavements can potentially have an increased service life. In addition, pavements
that are initially smoother are more likely to remain smoother throughout their service life.

Rehabilitated Sections of I-64

Analysis of the IRI data before and after repairs showed that the ride quality of all pavement
sections improved after repairs. The IRI values were currently within the limits set forth at
the initiation of this study. The average IRI values for Sections 1 and 2 were currently less
than those for Section 3.

The average skid resistance values for each section showed that the repairs did not negatively
affect the average skid resistance of the pavement.

An examination of the construction schedule showed that the time to complete the pavement
rehabilitation was nearly identical when comparing Section 1 and 2 versus Section 3.

The average cost per lane-mile rehabilitated was approximately $515,200 for Sections 1 and
2 combined and approximately $417,000 for Section 3. Although this cost difference may
seem great, the results of this study do not allow for a determination of any difference in
structural capacity or service life among sections.

19

GPR testing showed that the thickness of the HMA overlay in the majority of the pavement
in Sections 1 and 2 was equal to or slightly greater than the as-designed thickness. However,
areas exist where the thickness of the HMA overlay appears to be less than the as-designed
thickness.

CONCLUSION

To date, the pavement in all three sections of I-64 examined in this study is performing
satisfactorily. The data provided in this study will be important in future studies to assess
the costs and benefits of the rehabilitation treatments used.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. VDOTs Materials Division should annually monitor the ride quality of the pavement in
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this study and monitor the rate of transverse crack development in
Sections 1 and 2. This information can be obtained from annual distress data currently
collected by VDOTs Maintenance Division. Doing so would allow for an estimation of the
service life for the various repair options. Given the difference in the number of trucks
carried per section, the service life should be calculated in terms of number of trucks carried
rather than years of service, making the result more applicable to other locations.
2. The Virginia Transportation Research Council, in collaboration with other research
organizations, should encourage and pursue full-scale and/or laboratory-scale accelerated
pavement testing to determine optimum repair materials and methods for pre-overlay repair
of existing PCC pavements and to develop models to quantify the deterioration of an asphalt
overlay placed over an existing concrete pavement because of reflection cracking.

COSTS AND BENEFITS ASSESSMENT

The experimental results and the literature review did not provide enough information to
allow an estimation or comparison of the benefits of the three rehabilitation methods used. This
is in part attributable to the lack of a scientific model to quantify the deterioration of an asphalt
overlay placed over an existing concrete pavement by reflection cracking. This lack of an
available model does not allow for a comparison to be made in order to estimate or project the
anticipated service life of Section 1 versus Section 2 or to compare the loss of smoothness in
Sections 1 and 2 versus Section 3.
If additional or more detailed construction schedule data were available, the various
repair methods could be compared based on lane closure time as a cost to the traveling public.
However, using the information available for this study, the construction times were nearly

20

identical when comparing Sections 1 and 2 versus Section 3 despite the fact that Section 3
encompassed nearly 35% more lane mileage that Sections 1 and 2.
The pavement rehabilitation cost per lane-mile was nearly 20% less for Section 3 as
compared to Sections 1 and 2. However, the experimental results do not allow for a comparison
to determine any differences in structural capacity or service life among the sections.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the assistance of Trenton Clark, Affan Habib, and Sean Nelson,
VDOT Materials Division; Fred Durr and Tom Tate, VDOTs Hampton Roads District; Frank
Wiles and Mike Wells, VDOTs Richmond District; Stacey Diefenderfer, Kevin McGhee, and
Celik Ozyildirim, VTRC; Bob Long, American Concrete Pavement Association; and Richard
Schreck, Virginia Asphalt Association. Thanks also go to Jim Gillespie, VTRC, for his
assistance with the cost and benefits analysis. The authors thank Randy Combs, Ed Deasy, and
Linda Evans of VTRC for their assistance with the graphics and editorial process.

REFERENCES
Brown, S.F., N.H. Thom, and P.J. Sanders. (2001). A Study of Grid Reinforced Asphalt to
Combat Reflection Cracking. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, Vol. 71, pp. 543-571.
Buttlar, W.G., D. Bozkurt, and B.J. Dempsey. (2000). Cost-Effectiveness of Paving Fabrics
Used to Control Reflective Cracking. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1730. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, DC, pp. 139-149.
Button, J.W. and R.L. Lytton. (2007). Guidelines for Using Geosynthetics with Hot-Mix
Asphalt Overlays to Reduce Reflective Cracking. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2004. Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp. 111-119.
Elseifi, M.A., and I.L. Al-Qadi. (2005). Modeling of Strain Energy Absorbers for Rehabilitated
Cracked Flexible Pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 9,
pp. 653-661.
Freeman, T.E. (2002). Evaluation of Concrete Slab Fracturing Techniques in Mitigating
Reflective Cracking Through Asphalt Overlays. VTRC 03-R3. Virginia Transportation
Research Council, Charlottesville.

21

Gharaibeh, N.G., and M.I. Darter. (2003). Probabilistic Analysis of Highway Pavement Life for
Illinois. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1823. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, DC, pp. 111-120.
Gillespie, J.S., and K.K. McGhee (2007). What the Relationship Between Pavement Roughness
and Fuel Consumption Means for the Length of the Resurfacing Cycle. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
1990. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp.
32-39.
Hall, K.T., M.I. Darter, and J.P. Hall. (1991). Performance of Asphalt Concrete Resurfacing of
Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement on the Illinois Interstate Highway System. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
1307. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp.
180-187.
Hall, K.T., C.E. Correa, and A.L. Simpson. (2002). LTPP Data Analysis: Effectiveness of
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Options. NCHRP Web Document 47 (Project 2050[03/04]). National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
Kazmierowski, T.J., and H.J. Sturm. (1991). Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation and Overlay:
Ontarios Experience. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1307. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies Washington, DC, pp. 201-210.
Kim, J., and W.G. Buttlar. (2002). Long-Term Performance of Stone Interlayer Pavement.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 375-384.
Mahone, D.C., and W.C. Sherwood. (1996). Virginias Wet Accident Reduction Program: A
Users Manual. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville.
Maser, K.R. (2002). Use of Ground-Penetrating Radar Data for Rehabilitation of Composite
Pavements on High-Volume Roads. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1808. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, DC, pp. 122-126.
Maser, K.R., and T. Scullion. (1992). Automated Pavement Subsurface Profiling Using Radar:
Case Studies of Four Experimental Field Sites. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1344. Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp. 148-154.
McGhee, K.H. (1979). Attempts to Reduce Reflection Cracking of Bituminous Concrete
Overlays on Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. In Transportation Research Record:

22

Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 700. Transportation Research Board
of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp. 108-114.
McGhee, K.K., and J.S. Gillespie. (2006). Impact of a Smoothness Incentive/Disincentive on
Hot-Mix Asphalt Maintenance Resurfacing Costs. VTRC 06-R28. Virginia
Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville.
McGhee, K.K., and J.S. Gillespie, (2007). Value of Pavement Smoothness. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2040.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp. 48-54.
Pierce, L.M. (1994). Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation in Washington State:
Case Study. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1449. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, DC, pp. 189-198.
Rao, S., H.T. Yu, L. Khazanovich, M.I. Darter, and J.W. Mack. (1999). Longevity of DiamondGround Concrete Pavements. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1684. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, DC, pp. 128-136.
Sebesta, S., and T. Scullion. (2007). Selecting Rubblization for Rehabilitation of Concrete
Pavements: Case Studies in Texas. Paper presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Sime, M., and S.C. Ashmore. (2000). WesTrack Track Roughess, Fuel Consumption, and
Maintenance Costs. TechBrief HRD-11. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center,
Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
Smith, K.L., K.D. Smith, T.E. Hoerner, and M.I. Darter. (1997). Effect of Initial Pavement
Smoothness on Future Smoothness and Pavement Life. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1570. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp. 60-69.
Titi, H., M. Rasoulian, M. Martinez, B. Becnel, and G. Keel. (2003). Long-Term Performance
of Stone Interlayer Pavement. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 2,
pp. 118-126.
Virginia Department of Transportation, Materials Division. (2000). Guidelines for 1993
AASHTO Pavement Design. Richmond.
Virginia Department of Transportation, Materials Division, Pavement Design and Evaluation
Section. (2002). I-64 Corridor Study: Phase II Report. Richmond.
Virginia Department of Transportation, Asset Management Division. (2007a). A Guide to
Evaluating Pavement Distress Through the Use of Digital Images. Richmond.

23

Virginia Department of Transportation. (2007b). Average Daily Traffic Volumes with Vehicle
Classification Data on Interstate, Arterial and Primary Routes. Richmond.
http://www.virginiadot.org/info/ct-TrafficCounts.asp. Accessed August 5, 2008.
Von Holdt, C., and T. Scullion. (2005). Methods of Reducing Joint Reflection Cracking: Field
Performance Studies. Report 0-4517-3. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station.
Wen, H., H. Titi, and D. Berry. (2006). Study of Best Practices for Pre-Overlay Repair and
Asphalt Overlay. ASCE Highway & Airfield Pavements Conference, Atlanta, GA, pp.
815-823.

24

APPENDIX A
PAVEMENT SMOOTHNESS TESTING RESULTS

25

26

Figure A.1. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (7/15/2004) and After (6/17/2008)
Construction (Section 1, Eastbound Lane 1)

Figure A.2. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (7/15/2004) and After (6/17/2008)
Construction (Section 1, Eastbound Lane 2)

27

Figure A.3. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (7/15/2004) and After (6/17/2008)
Construction (Section 1, Eastbound Lane 3)

Figure A.4. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (7/15/2004) and After (6/17/2008)
Construction (Section 1, Westbound Lane 1)

28

Figure A.5. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (7/15/2004) and After (6/17/2008)
Construction (Section 1, Westbound Lane 2)

Figure A.6. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (7/15/2004) and After (6/17/2008)
Construction (Section 1, Westbound Lane 3)

29

Figure A.7. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (7/15/2004) and After (6/17/2008)
Construction (Section 2, Eastbound Lane 1)

Figure A.8. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (7/15/2004) and After (6/17/2008)
Construction (Section 2, Eastbound Lane 2)

30

Figure A.9. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (7/15/2004) and After (6/17/2008)
Construction (Section 2, Westbound Lane 1)

Figure A.10. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (7/15/2004) and After (6/17/2008)
Construction (Section 2, Westbound Lane 2)

31

Figure A.11. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (4/13/2004) and After (7/1/2008)
Construction (Section 3, Eastbound Lane 1)

Figure A.12. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (4/13/2004) and After (7/1/2008)
Construction (Section 3, Eastbound Lane 2)

32

Figure A.13. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (4/26/2005) and After (7/1/2008)
Construction (Section 3, Westbound Lane 1)

Figure A.14. Distribution of International Roughness Index Before (4/26/2005) and After (7/1/2008)
Construction (Section 3, Westbound Lane 2)

33

34

APPENDIX B
GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR TESTING RESULTS

35

36

Figure B.1. HMA Overlay Thickness from Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing (Eastbound, Section 1, Lane 0)

Figure B.2. HMA Overlay Thickness from Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing (Westbound, Section 1, Lane 0)

37

Figure B.3. HMA Overlay Thickness from Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing (Eastbound, Section 1, Lane 1)

Figure B.4. HMA Overlay Thickness from Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing (Eastbound, Section 2, Lane 1)

38

Figure B.5. HMA Overlay Thickness from Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing (Westbound, Section 1, Lane 1)

Figure B.6. HMA Overlay Thickness from Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing (Westbound, Section 2, Lane 1)

39

Figure B.7. HMA Overlay Thickness from Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing (Eastbound, Section 1, Lane 2)

Figure B.8. HMA Overlay Thickness from Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing (Eastbound, Section 2, Lane 2)

40

Figure B.9. HMA Overlay Thickness from Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing (Westbound, Section 1, Lane 2)

Figure B.10. HMA Overlay Thickness from Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing (Westbound, Section 2, Lane 2)

41