Speaker
Description
Abstract. Compaction quality and density of longitudinal joints are critical to the service life of asphalt pavements. Maintaining deteriorated longitudinal joints has become challenging for many highway agencies. A poorly constructed low-density joint can prematurely distress an otherwise sound flexible pavement, leading to its performance issues in the long run. Longitudinal joints are built using different longitudinal joint geometries, rolling patterns, and construction techniques to achieve better joint compaction. However, each construction technique has its associated risk in making a well-compacted longitudinal joint. In addition, conventional quality assurance (QA) methods like coring and density gauges increase the chances of accepting a poorly constructed longitudinal joint because of limited coverage. This study leveraged the continuous compaction coverage capability of the non-destructive density profiling system (DPS) to identify differences between the joint types and construction techniques. Data analyses show that constructing an unconfined joint should be avoided when possible. Percent within limits (PWL) analysis showed that any joint geometry could produce the least relative compaction differences between a pavement's joint and its mat except for the unconfined joint. Moreover, cutting 4 to 6 inches back from the edge after compaction may result in better compaction of an unconfined joint. Further, PWL results showed that using a smaller subsection/lot can isolate compaction issues locally.
