Amazing concrete
Michael G. Koerner
----------
In article <357C45E2...@bellsouth.net>, Tom Marney
<tma...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I-20 in Atlanta from 75-85 to 285 was opened in '62 as a six-lane
>freeway with concrete pavement. Aside from a signage and guardrail
>update in the late sixties, no other improvements were made 'til the mid
>
>'90s. At that time, 20 was widened to 8 lanes plus 2 HOV lanes, all
>bridges were replaced, and...the original concrete paving remains! It's
>still in good shape, and is expected to remain that way for a long time.
>
>Isn't that amazing?
When US 41 was widened from four to six lanes in the Neenah-Appleton, WI
area in 1992/93, the old bridges carrying US 41 over Cecil St in Neenah were
salvaged (they were built in the late 1960s). All of the old pre-stressed
concrete beams were reused in the new bridges, and the supports were
expanded to carry the new six lanes with a higher clearence over the street.
The underside of the bridge is a fascinating study in engineering
resourcefullness.
Also, the concrete surface of the Edens Expressway (I-94) from the Kennedy
Expressway (I-90) in Chicago, IL to the Tri-State Tollway 'Edens Spur' in
Northbrook, IL, poured in the late 1970s/early 1980s, is still smooth and
still 'sings'.
____________________________________________________________________________
Regards,
Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI
***NOTICE*** SPAMfilter in use, please remove ALL 'i's from the return
address to reply. ***NOTICE***
____________________________________________________________________________
Tom Marney
John Lansford
Tom Marney <tma...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Not really. Well designed, well drained Portland Cement concrete
pavements have service lives of at least 30 years. If the subgrade is
still functioning and the truck traffic hasn't increased over the
projected numbers, then there's no reason why the PCC pavement can't
remain there indefinitely with only minimal maintenance required.
John Lansford, PE
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
Don Hamparian
As bumpy as Michigan highways are - there are many stretches of original
concrete that are approaching 40 years old. When you consider the age of some of
that concrete, you realize they didn't do too bad.
Don
Michael G. Koerner wrote:
> ----------
> In article <357C45E2...@bellsouth.net>, Tom Marney
Casey Cooper
Sorry to be the Grinch who stole Christmas, but that doesn't impress me too
much. Many freeways here in Southern California were paved with Portland
Cement Concrete about that time, with many others predating that; all have
smooth riding surfaces. A couple of heavily traveled examples: the Hollywood
(US 101) Fwy, built c. 1947 - 1953, as well as the Pasadena Fwy.
The champion in my observations is Pacific Coast Highway in Laguna Beach.
Originally constructed as the Roosevelt Highway in 1927, the original
concrete surface remains in very good shape - and we're talking about over
70 years of heavy traffic on it! The sections without an AC overlay are very
driveable, while the sections with the asphaltic cocrete have fared very
poorly. Alas! Caltrans has finally condescended to rehabilitate the whole
highway, with the inevitable loss of the beautiful old concrete that has
served so well.
I'll end this by putting all the above in a larger context. The Appian Way
in Rome is over 2,000 years old, predating the birth of Jesus. While many
sections have gone to pot due to a variety of natural and unnatural reasons,
some sections today are used for auto traffic - this using the original
2,000 year old paving stones. And some Roman bridges are still used on
various highways. I'd like to see our roads last a fraction that long!
Regards,
Casey
Tom Marney wrote in message <357C45E2...@bellsouth.net>...
John Lansford
"Casey Cooper" <ca...@gbcnet.com> wrote:
>I'll end this by putting all the above in a larger context. The Appian Way
>in Rome is over 2,000 years old, predating the birth of Jesus.
When you build a road with a subbase over 2 feet deep, and drain it
properly, then put nothing more damaging than horse drawn wagons on it
for thousands of years, no wonder it lasts for a long time.
> While many
>sections have gone to pot due to a variety of natural and unnatural reasons,
>some sections today are used for auto traffic - this using the original
>2,000 year old paving stones.
It's not the surface; it's the subbase. The Romans weren't exactly
worried about cost when they built their roads; they just put in a
really deep subdesign to keep the road dry and stable.
> And some Roman bridges are still used on
>various highways. I'd like to see our roads last a fraction that long!
Where is a bridge built by the Romans still in use as a roadway
structure? Does it allow commercial vehicles on it?
ryas...@remcen.ehhs.cmich.edu
In my opinion, there's nothing better than concrete. I love concrete. I
love the 'click-clack' and whistling sound it makes when I drive on it. It
also seems to be much stronger than tar. As everyone well knows by now, I
live near US-27 in Michigan. 27, between Clare and Mt. Pleasant, is now
being pulverized and resurfaced with tar. My personal preference is cement
patches--at least the way they do it around here. South of Mt. Pleasant to
Shephard, they have cut out portions of cement at the cracks, where the have
come misjoined, and filled them with 2-feet wide cement strips that span two
lanes. The shoulders were resurfaced with tar. It looks pretty good for
being over 30 years old! I read that that was going to be done around Alma
and Ithaca next year. This makes the ride very smooth and I'm happy to be
able to hear the concrete sounds.
-Ryan Stahl
P.S. 8 miles of US-27 from St. Johns to Gratiot County Line now being
resurfaced. 1 lane of traffic both ways at times.
In article <357DD5CD...@idi.oclc.org>,
ha...@idi.oclc.org wrote:
>
> As bumpy as Michigan highways are - there are many stretches of original
> concrete that are approaching 40 years old. When you consider the age of some
> of
> that concrete, you realize they didn't do too bad.
> Don
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Spam Hater
In Indiana, I remember that a 4 lane highway from
Wabash IN to US 31 known as US 24 was built in the
mid 1970's but in the mid 1980's, it was resurfaced.
The concrete lasted only 10 years.
I would be curious to see how long parts of I-70
last after total reconstruction in Indiana, that is
where the pavement was ripped and torn out and replaced
with fresh concrete.
Besides having a very decent bedding underneath, how
much is it worth to use very thick concrete versus
doing it halfway and having to re-do it several
years later.
Aaron M. Renn
Spam Hater wrote in message <357E9E...@kktv.com>...
>In Indiana, I remember that a 4 lane highway from
>Wabash IN to US 31 known as US 24 was built in the
>mid 1970's but in the mid 1980's, it was resurfaced.
>The concrete lasted only 10 years.
Indiana had a dubious flirtation with rebar that might account for this.
The Department of Highways started adding continuous steel reinforcement to
their pavement, but at the same time dramatically reduced pavement
thickness. Most of the roads constructed of this stuff had to be replaced
in short order.
However, be aware that resurfacing does not necessarily mean that the
concrete is bad. In most resurfacings, the original concrete is merely
patched where necessary and an asphalt overlay applied.
I would expect modern pavement to last quite some time. I believe INDOT
designs for a 30 year pavement life. Today's standards (especially for
drainage) for freeway construction are higher than when the system was
originally built, so the replaced I-70 surface should last longer than the
original.
--
*****************************************************
* Aaron M. Renn *
* Email: ar...@urbanophile.com *
* Homepage: <URL:http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/> *
*****************************************************
John Lansford
ryas...@remcen.ehhs.cmich.edu wrote:
>In my opinion, there's nothing better than concrete. I love concrete. I
>love the 'click-clack' and whistling sound it makes when I drive on it. It
>also seems to be much stronger than tar.
It is stronger, but the alternative isn't "tar". It's asphalt cement.
> As everyone well knows by now, I
>live near US-27 in Michigan. 27, between Clare and Mt. Pleasant, is now
>being pulverized and resurfaced with tar.
IT'S NOT TAR!!
> My personal preference is cement
>patches--at least the way they do it around here. South of Mt. Pleasant to
>Shephard, they have cut out portions of cement at the cracks, where the have
>come misjoined, and filled them with 2-feet wide cement strips that span two
>lanes.
Of course, the problem with that is it is both expensive and time
consuming. It's a lot cheaper and faster to put some more asphalt (NOT
tar) into the potholes and, if properly done, it won't come right back
out when it rains.
Philip Blaiklock
On the subject of concrete (I like it too), how about the many places
where states inexplicably pave over a perfectly good concrete surface
for no reason? True, in many cases the original concrete may have been
bad, but instead of making a new concrete surface, they instead just
pour asphalt over it to cut costs. I would contend that paving over a
concrete surface always makes it "worse," as the cracks always break
through the asphalt, often wider than the original surface.
Here is an example: I-181 in Johnson City, TN. There was one
quarter-mile stretch going down a hill, and the concrete surface was
quite good. For some odd reason, they paved over the half of the road
going down. Within a year, it was very bumpy, with very wide cracks.
Thankfully, the asphalt was soon removed.
--
_________________________________________________________________
|PHILIP BLAIKLOCK /|\ http://washington.xtn.net/~philipb/ |_
| Thou /_|_\ | |
| Shalt Not \ | / Home of | |
| Assume \|/ You Can't Do That On Star Trek! | |
|_____________________V___________________________________________| |
|_________________________________________________________________|
"I believe in the powers that be, but they won't overpower me."
- Bono, 1982
Michael G. Koerner
----------
In article <357F39...@owlnet.rice.edu>, Philip Blaiklock
<phi...@owlnet.rice.edu> wrote:
>On the subject of concrete (I like it too), how about the many places
>where states inexplicably pave over a perfectly good concrete surface
>for no reason? True, in many cases the original concrete may have been
>bad, but instead of making a new concrete surface, they instead just
>pour asphalt over it to cut costs. I would contend that paving over a
>concrete surface always makes it "worse," as the cracks always break
>through the asphalt, often wider than the original surface.
>
>Here is an example: I-181 in Johnson City, TN. There was one
>quarter-mile stretch going down a hill, and the concrete surface was
>quite good. For some odd reason, they paved over the half of the road
>going down. Within a year, it was very bumpy, with very wide cracks.
>Thankfully, the asphalt was soon removed.
When I-43 was widened from 4 to 6 lanes and re-engineered from the 'Beer
Line' bridge (at the north edge of the City of Milwaukee, just north of
Capitol Dr (WI 190)) northward about 2 miles to just north of Silver Spring
Dr, the new 6 lane concrete was finished with a nice smooth 'tined' surface.
For some odd reason, some politically well-connected people living about
1/2 to 1 mile away in the well-to-do North Shore suburbs (mainly Whitefish
Bay) started to complain about the 'singing' noise from the freeway. (These
people have also worked for years to prevent cell-phone towers from being
built in their suburbs because of their unsightly nature and terrible health
threats, and then complained bitterly because their cell phones don't work
right in the area.) Within about 2 years after the freeway improvements
were completed, WisDOT had placed an asphalt overlay on the concrete to
quiet the freeway and placate the neighbors.. 'Go figger...'
nwp...@student.berklee.edu
In article <357F39...@owlnet.rice.edu>,
phi...@owlnet.rice.edu wrote:
>
> On the subject of concrete (I like it too), how about the many places
> where states inexplicably pave over a perfectly good concrete surface
> for no reason? True, in many cases the original concrete may have been
> bad, but instead of making a new concrete surface, they instead just
> pour asphalt over it to cut costs. I would contend that paving over a
> concrete surface always makes it "worse," as the cracks always break
> through the asphalt, often wider than the original surface.
>
> Here is an example: I-181 in Johnson City, TN. There was one
> quarter-mile stretch going down a hill, and the concrete surface was
> quite good. For some odd reason, they paved over the half of the road
> going down. Within a year, it was very bumpy, with very wide cracks.
> Thankfully, the asphalt was soon removed.
For the opposite, NYS Thruway recently replaced the asphalt surface with shiny
new concrete as a test area between exits 44 and 45. I like it. It doesn't get
as slippery in the rain.
BTW, how do you pronounce "macadam"? Is it MAC-a-dam or mac-AD-am like the guy
it was named for?
NP
John Lansford
Philip Blaiklock <phi...@owlnet.rice.edu> wrote:
>On the subject of concrete (I like it too), how about the many places
>where states inexplicably pave over a perfectly good concrete surface
>for no reason? True, in many cases the original concrete may have been
>bad, but instead of making a new concrete surface, they instead just
>pour asphalt over it to cut costs. I would contend that paving over a
>concrete surface always makes it "worse," as the cracks always break
>through the asphalt, often wider than the original surface.
>
>Here is an example: I-181 in Johnson City, TN. There was one
>quarter-mile stretch going down a hill, and the concrete surface was
>quite good. For some odd reason, they paved over the half of the road
>going down. Within a year, it was very bumpy, with very wide cracks.
>Thankfully, the asphalt was soon removed.
Sounds like all they did was just throw some pavement over the
concrete. This is not the correct way to add asphalt to a concrete
pavement.
Concrete, while providing a relatively low maintenance driving
surface, suffers from several problems.
One of them is friction; during the winter ice and snow melts slower
off of it due to the lighter color.
Also, you can't just go around "making a new concrete surface".
Placing a concrete overlay on an existing concrete pavement usually
results in the thinner layer popping off of it shortly thereafter.
Milling the concrete down a half inch to a full inch is the usual
treatment, and obviously if that makes it too thin to support the
traffic then it's not an option.
If the asphalt overlay is correctly done, there is no problem with
reflective cracking. The concrete joints have to be sealed and
stabilized, and then a thick enough asphalt layer added over it. On
I-440 around Raleigh, for example, NCDOT used a rubbleizer machine to
turn the concrete pavement into a high grade subbase, and then added
many inches of asphalt over it. The resulting pavement will last a lot
longer than just rehabilitating the existing concrete pavement.
John Lansford
"Michael G. Koerner" <migk...@idatiaexii.com> wrote:
>When I-43 was widened from 4 to 6 lanes and re-engineered from the 'Beer
>Line' bridge (at the north edge of the City of Milwaukee, just north of
>Capitol Dr (WI 190)) northward about 2 miles to just north of Silver Spring
>Dr, the new 6 lane concrete was finished with a nice smooth 'tined' surface.
> For some odd reason, some politically well-connected people living about
>1/2 to 1 mile away in the well-to-do North Shore suburbs (mainly Whitefish
>Bay) started to complain about the 'singing' noise from the freeway. (These
>people have also worked for years to prevent cell-phone towers from being
>built in their suburbs because of their unsightly nature and terrible health
>threats, and then complained bitterly because their cell phones don't work
>right in the area.) Within about 2 years after the freeway improvements
>were completed, WisDOT had placed an asphalt overlay on the concrete to
>quiet the freeway and placate the neighbors.. 'Go figger...'
Why is this wrong? The noise caused by the interaction of concrete
pavement and high speed tires has been determined to be quite
significant, and if there was a residential area adjacent to it
without the benefit of a noise wall then paving over the concrete with
asphalt is a good cost effective solution.
Often there are unintended consequences to improving a road. This
appears to be one of those situations.
Aaron M. Renn
John Lansford wrote in message <357fa4b4....@news.vnet.net>...
>Also, you can't just go around "making a new concrete surface".
>Placing a concrete overlay on an existing concrete pavement usually
>results in the thinner layer popping off of it shortly thereafter.
What's the latest research on this? I've read a bit about "white topping",
which appeared to be simply a concrete overlay of the existing pavement. (I
believe Iowa has done a lot of experiments with this). Could you elaborate
a bit on what white topping is and what the trial results have been to date?
I'm curious.
John Lansford
"Aaron M. Renn" <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote:
>John Lansford wrote in message <357fa4b4....@news.vnet.net>...
>>Also, you can't just go around "making a new concrete surface".
>>Placing a concrete overlay on an existing concrete pavement usually
>>results in the thinner layer popping off of it shortly thereafter.
>
>What's the latest research on this? I've read a bit about "white topping",
>which appeared to be simply a concrete overlay of the existing pavement. (I
>believe Iowa has done a lot of experiments with this). Could you elaborate
>a bit on what white topping is and what the trial results have been to date?
>I'm curious.
I've heard of this overlay of existing concrete pavement, but I don't
think that NCDOT has actually used any of it. It appears to be a
mixture of concrete and various admixtures to provide elasticity to
the overlay and to make it stick better to the old concrete. Those
admixtures make the overlay expensive, but they appear to work in some
cases.
Scott M. Kozel
John Lansford <jo...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
> Sounds like all they did was just throw some pavement over the
> concrete. This is not the correct way to add asphalt to a concrete
> pavement.
put over a concrete expressway pavement, and the joints soon reflected
through. That's not the way to do it....
> If the asphalt overlay is correctly done, there is no problem with
> reflective cracking. The concrete joints have to be sealed and
> stabilized, and then a thick enough asphalt layer added over it.
When the I-495 Capital Beltway in Virginia was widened 1974-1977, they
did a great job. The original road was almost entirely reinforced
concrete pavement (except for about a mile). The new lanes (1 each way
east of I-95/I-395, 2 each way north of I-95/I-395) were added, and
identical design reinforced concrete pavement was used. It was 9 or 10
inches thick, on top of a deep aggregate base course. The full
shoulders, right and left, were given a base of 6" plain concrete
pavement. The original lanes had extensive concrete patching on spalled
and cracked joint areas. The entire roadway and shoulders were overlaid
with 4 inches of hot-mix asphalt base course. Finally, a 2 inch hot-mix
asphalt surface course was applied.
This 22-mile 8-lane expressway has done very well. Depending on the
section, it now carries 175,000 to 220,000 vehicles per day, with 8-10%
trucks. Resurfacings via milling and overlay have been at least 8 years
apart. This "asphalt/concrete" pavement has been very durable, and has
stayed smooth. Also, busy expressways tend to have problems with
shoulder deterioration, but the I-495 shoulders have stayed very solid.
--
Scott M. Kozel koz...@richmond.infi.net
Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
PHL area http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html
Mark Bozanich
>
> The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
> http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
I thought that the correct technical terms were Portland cement concrete
(PCC) and asphalt concrete surface (ACS). BTW, there are portions of I-5
in Tacoma paved with PCC that opened to traffic in 1960 and have not
been resurfaced. There are also rural portions of old US 99 that were
paved with PCC in the 1920's that have not been resurfaced. Granted,
these portions of 99 were replaced by newer generation 99 in the 1940's
or early 50's and were not subjected to the heavy traffic volumes or
truck weights of today.
Mark
Aaron M. Renn
Mark Bozanich wrote:
> been resurfaced. There are also rural portions of old US 99 that were
> paved with PCC in the 1920's that have not been resurfaced. Granted,
Pendleton Pike (US 36/SR 67) in Indianapolis carries over 50,000 cars per
day in some stretches. It was originally built as a 10' concrete roadway in
1919 and that original pavement is still there underneath the current
asphalt overlay.
Mike McManus
nwp...@student.berklee.edu wrote:
> For the opposite, NYS Thruway recently replaced the asphalt surface with shiny
> new concrete as a test area between exits 44 and 45. I like it. It doesn't get
> as slippery in the rain.
Back to the 'noisy Interstates' part of the thread... I drove that section today
and yes, it is quite noisy to drive on. But there's a definite pitch (actually
two) to the noise, which means that the grooves in the road are very accurately
spaced.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Mike McManus _/ home: mmcm...@frontiernet.net _/
_/ Rochester, NY _/ work: mcm...@kodak.com _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
John Lansford
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>When the I-495 Capital Beltway in Virginia was widened 1974-1977, they
>did a great job. The original road was almost entirely reinforced
>concrete pavement (except for about a mile). The new lanes (1 each way
>east of I-95/I-395, 2 each way north of I-95/I-395) were added, and
>identical design reinforced concrete pavement was used. It was 9 or 10
>inches thick, on top of a deep aggregate base course.
Was it continually reinforced concrete or the type where the rebar
stopped at the concrete slabs? If built back in the 70's it probably
was the latter.
> The full
>shoulders, right and left, were given a base of 6" plain concrete
>pavement.
Here in NC we call that design "econocrete" and is used only on the
shoulders.
> The original lanes had extensive concrete patching on spalled
>and cracked joint areas.
It's been a while since I've had a concrete paving project, but IIRC
the usual method for replacing a failed section of concrete was to
remove the entire failed area for about 1'-2' around it and repour the
concrete.
> The entire roadway and shoulders were overlaid
>with 4 inches of hot-mix asphalt base course. Finally, a 2 inch hot-mix
>asphalt surface course was applied.
Wow, six inches of asphalt pavement over a 10" concrete over a
subbase. No wonder it still looks good. How did they handle going
under any structures?
>This 22-mile 8-lane expressway has done very well. Depending on the
>section, it now carries 175,000 to 220,000 vehicles per day, with 8-10%
>trucks. Resurfacings via milling and overlay have been at least 8 years
>apart. This "asphalt/concrete" pavement has been very durable, and has
>stayed smooth. Also, busy expressways tend to have problems with
>shoulder deterioration, but the I-495 shoulders have stayed very solid.
I-440 around Raleigh had the entire existing concrete pavement
rubbleized, and then a deep asphalt pavement over the whole roadway.
The road was also widened to three lanes each direction plus auxiliary
lanes between interchanges. The only problems we've had with it are in
the areas where extensive paving had to be put down for traffic
control phasing shifts; the pavement has remained "bumpy" in those
areas but everywhere else it is very good.