So I seen that Asphalt and Concrete have both Pro's and Con's. My question is,
Which of these are better? and also in Delaware Del-dot has Experimented with a new type of roadway surface, with grooves. Is this roadway also better then the two mentioned above?
Also what causes deformities in these roadways that were just laid out 5-10 years ago? I know about the alkali—silica reaction but that's only in certain roadways that have that chemical mixture in it. :hmmm:
QuoteConcrete roads are highly durable and more environmentally friendly as compared to asphalt roads. However asphalt paving costs far less than concrete paving. Also, asphalt road provides a little better safety of the vehicle against snow and skidding.
Me personally, I like roads built with longitudinal concrete like part of I-90 outside of Syracuse. It's quiet and feels like I'm flying in the air.
Asphalt is a type of concrete.
Bam!
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2017, 05:01:57 PM
Asphalt is a type of concrete.
Bam!
... You're not wrong.
(Asphaltic Concrete vs Portland Cement Concrete)
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2017, 05:01:57 PM
Asphalt is a type of concrete.
Bam!
(https://scontent-lga3-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s640x640/sh0.08/e35/c0.123.1008.1008/12331702_137637769938758_2046546248_n.jpg)
Quote from: Buffaboy on May 10, 2017, 04:31:24 PM
Me personally, I like roads built with longitudinal concrete like part of I-90 outside of Syracuse. It's quiet and feels like I'm flying in the air.
Concrete can be nice unless it has many potholes. (any road can.) But asphalt is smooth and quiet when they first put it down.
It also makes the surrounding area look nice. especially with the pavement marks. :awesomeface:
Here in NY, we are mostly an asphalt state now, because NYSDOT has found concrete too expensive to maintain...unless the soil conditions require it (and, even then, crack and seat was favored for NY 85).
Out here in California concrete was used in copious amounts during the big building era of freeway construction. The concrete generally holds up very well, but it is loud and definitely isn't exactly something that probably been maintained as well as it should have over the decades (see $5.2 billion thread in Pacific Southwest). Other states like Arizona use rubberized asphalt in major urban areas which seems to be holding up decently out in the drier climates. Personally I like it because of how quiet and it made things commuting when I lived in the Valley, I was really surprised to see there actually some detractors who didn't like it. I can't imagine that the surfaces will hold up as well as the concrete in California, but ADOT has the money why not use it for maintenance?
Concrete's biggest weakness IMO is its noise....something that there's been a lot of research on in Minnesota and Iowa to find ways to tweak the concrete surface to reduce road noise. One idea that came out of Minnesota about 2 decades ago was dragging artificial turf across the surface as it's curing. MnDOT tested this on I-35W through Richfield when it was rebuilt ca. 1999.
I found Rothman's comment regarding NYSDOT and concrete maintenance to be intruiging, because the Upper Midwest has generally found the opposite to be true. Especially for heavier duty roads or roads expected to see heavy haul rates (like agricultural harvest for example), concrete tends to hold better...even some Minnesota counties use concrete (and most of Iowa did as well though they lagged on the maintenance part).
Meanwhile, I cannot think of a single roadway in Vermont that uses concrete.
Quote from: Tonytone on May 10, 2017, 03:59:46 PM
So I seen that Asphalt and Concrete have both Pro's and Con's. My question is,
Which of these are better? and also in Delaware Del-dot has Experimented with a new type of roadway surface, with grooves. Is this roadway also better then the two mentioned above?
I think that roadway is still concrete - just with a different groove pattern.
NJ constantly experiments with various types of asphalt. From my perspective, some may be louder or quieter than others, but they all tend to have about the same lifespan. The only one I dislike is what I believe they term 'microseal', which is milling and repaving just an inch of pavement. That seems to give out sooner than traditional 2 or 3 inch milling and repavings.
Asphalt roads are usually cheaper, and they are paved without initial cracks or joints (except where one section of road meets another section). Asphalt cement is a byproduct of petroleum refining, so its cost increases as the prices for oil increases. I remember when gas prices were really high, more and more road projects switched over to concrete pavements rather than asphalt. Since asphalt pavements are more flexible, you need to have a very sturdy and sometimes deep base to make sure the pavement stays consistently sturdy. Asphalt pavements are also more susceptible to ripples, spalling, bleeding, and rutting. Concrete's main problems come from their costs and their joints between slabs which invite a whole bunch of problems.
With concrete, you can disambiguate even further; concrete pavements can be split into a few different categories:
1) Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement...................The cheapest and most typical form of concrete pavement, where slabs are 10 to 15 feet long held together using only lubricated round dowel bars. Since joints are planned every 10 to 15 feet, I wouldn't recommend the use of this method in wetter climates with a lot of freeze-thaw cycles, because the water that gets into the cracks expands when it freezes, pushing up the ends of each slab and creating a wave-like pattern to the roadway as you drive down it. (This doesn't stop the ISTHA from using this method, and because of that, their roads often make people seasick.)
2) Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement...........Slabs are about 40 to 100 feet long, and both dowel and tie bars are typically used. (Dowels are between a slab and the next slab ahead of it; tie bars hold together slabs in adjacent lanes.) All concrete slabs will develop cracks, especially if the slabs are larger, so once the slabs reach sizes like this, engineers employ the use of internal reinforcing steel to prevent cracks from forming and opening to an excessive extent.
3) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement...Concrete is continuously placed with no planned joints whatsoever; the lane is just one continuous slab. As stated before, all concrete cracks, so reinforcing steel is used to provide tensile strength that keeps the inevitable cracks from opening up to become too wide. You might not even notice the plethora of cracks that form on CRCP, but if you look closely, you will see a whole lot of them--they're just held together so tightly that they don't disrupt the smoothness of the road. The amount of reinforcing steel makes this type of pavement expensive, so this method is usually only used on high-profile roadways.
When concrete roads are finished, they are raked with brushes or a literal rake outfitted with an array of sharp tines like on a fork. Sidewalks are often brushed with a broom with soft bristles, similar to those you use to sweep a garage. This doesn't provide enough traction for automobile tires, however--that's why they're raked with something more robust. Most roads in the past have been raked across from right to left (transversally), but newer research is suggesting that it's more effective to rake concrete roads longitudinally (with the grooves parallel with the path of traffic), for the best traction. That's probably what those small grooves are for.
If you want to learn more on this, you can read stuff...or take college classes lol: http://www.idot.illinois.gov/assets/uploads/files/transportation-system/research/pavement-technology-advisories/design-construction-and-materials-seriesnew-folder/ptad3.pdf
Quote from: Tonytone on May 10, 2017, 08:30:11 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on May 10, 2017, 04:31:24 PM
Me personally, I like roads built with longitudinal concrete like part of I-90 outside of Syracuse. It's quiet and feels like I'm flying in the air.
Concrete can be nice unless it has many potholes. (any road can.) But asphalt is smooth and quiet when they first put it down.
It also makes the surrounding area look nice. especially with the pavement marks. :awesomeface:
Generally I find this to be true.
What I like most is when I'm driving on a road with noisy asphalt, and then I hit the point where there's a newer layer of it. It's so quiet.
Like Rothman said though, the conditions of upstate weather does much harm to the concrete roads, which crack easily.
All these years and we only have two types of road to lay down. :pan: I think our people at Dot need to go back to the writing board.
Quote from: Tonytone on May 11, 2017, 02:28:38 PM
All these years and we only have two types of road to lay down. :pan: I think our people at Dot need to go back to the writing board.
Steel grates, brick, high friction treatments?
Quote from: Tonytone on May 11, 2017, 02:28:38 PM
All these years and we only have two types of road to lay down. :pan: I think our people at Dot need to go back to the writing board.
No, no,
paulthemapguy just identified three different types of hydraulic concrete alone. I've also driven on graded dirt, oil-sealed, gravel, river rock, cobblestone, and brick roads. Et cetera.
And we haven't even discussed the different kinds of whitetopping yet.
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2017, 02:44:31 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 11, 2017, 02:28:38 PM
All these years and we only have two types of road to lay down. :pan: I think our people at Dot need to go back to the writing board.
No, no, paulthemapguy just identified three different types of hydraulic concrete alone. I've also driven on graded dirt, oil-sealed, gravel, river rock, cobblestone, and brick roads. Et cetera.
And we haven't even discussed the different kinds of whitetopping yet.
Whitetopping? Please continue.
Quote from: Tonytone on May 11, 2017, 02:50:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2017, 02:44:31 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 11, 2017, 02:28:38 PM
All these years and we only have two types of road to lay down. :pan: I think our people at Dot need to go back to the writing board.
No, no, paulthemapguy just identified three different types of hydraulic concrete alone. I've also driven on graded dirt, oil-sealed, gravel, river rock, cobblestone, and brick roads. Et cetera.
And we haven't even discussed the different kinds of whitetopping yet.
Whitetopping? Please continue.
Thin layer of
concrete portland cement concrete over existing asphaltic concrete
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUgPovg3.jpg&hash=e49e941d5c034eebfb064bb31b3a80cac27750d2)
Quote from: Tonytone on May 11, 2017, 02:50:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2017, 02:44:31 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 11, 2017, 02:28:38 PM
All these years and we only have two types of road to lay down. :pan: I think our people at Dot need to go back to the writing board.
No, no, paulthemapguy just identified three different types of hydraulic concrete alone. I've also driven on graded dirt, oil-sealed, gravel, river rock, cobblestone, and brick roads. Et cetera.
And we haven't even discussed the different kinds of whitetopping yet.
Whitetopping? Please continue.
Click here. (http://bfy.tw/Bjnz)
I was discussing the types of PCC typically used on high-profile highways. I never meant to imply they are the ONLY FORMS out there lol. I knew someone would come out and say I was oversimplifying, but like, dude. This is the internet. Did you see how long my post was in the first place? You want me to drone on for longer? :)
Yes "concrete" is colloquially short for PCC. Yes "asphalt" is colloquially short for "asphalt concrete." I speak colloquially, for the normies.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 12, 2017, 09:41:42 AM
I was discussing the types of PCC typically used on high-profile highways. I never meant to imply they are the ONLY FORMS out there lol. I knew someone would come out and say I was oversimplifying, but like, dude. This is the internet. Did you see how long my post was in the first place? You want me to drone on for longer? :)
Yes "concrete" is colloquially short for PCC. Yes "asphalt" is colloquially short for "asphalt concrete." I speak colloquially, for the normies.
I didn't mean to imply you were oversimplifying. In fact, I was using how specific you were as an example of how many types of pavement there are. I personally wouldn't mind you droning on for longer, as it is an interesting topic that doesn't get much discussion on here. One of my best friends is an engineer who designs bridges here in Kansas, so I occasionally end up having discussions about concrete with him; the more knowledge I glean here, the better I am at discussing.
Edited to add: I think the misunderstanding came from my use of "just identified." You thought I meant "only identified," but I actually meant "recently identified."
lso, PCC is considered "rigid" and can also be used for structural work, while AC in considered "flexible", while good for surfaces, it can't hold up for structures.
There is a philosophical dimension to the asphalt versus concrete divide that has not yet been mentioned. In some countries, including the US, the choice of pavement type is to an extent driven by a desire to compensate for inadequate bearing capacity of the subgrade. In others, such as Germany, bearing capacity is considered too important to compromise, no matter how much it costs to excavate muck and other highly compressible soil and replace it with competent borrow. There was an Autobahn project in the late 1930's that essentially consisted of building a "buried dam" across a swamp (replacing bad soil more than 50 feet deep across a considerable length) just to provide a suitable subgrade.
In these countries, the asphalt versus concrete choice boils down to economics and to technical considerations other than subgrade bearing capacity, such as noise (taking into account the extent to which this can be controlled given available construction techniques), absolute volume and weight of traffic, climate, expected costs of subsequent necessary upkeep, etc.
As a general rule, it is possible to design "perpetual pavements" (pavements that, if properly maintained, never need full-depth reconstruction) in either asphalt or concrete, but asphalt "perpetual pavement" still needs periodic renewal (typically replacement of the top layer in a mill-and-overlay operation) while the concrete version tends to need just spot attention such as joint repair. In locations where traffic is expected to increase to levels that justify widening, a "perpetual pavement" can cause problems with excess durability that prevent it being the appropriate or economic solution.
Factor endowments are also ulterior considerations since the market in oil products is not completely deregulated and Portland cement takes a tremendous amount of energy to produce.
"Just spot attention such as joint repair."
In NY, we have found such attention to be problematic. Any drive across "repaired" concrete proves how difficult it can be to return a concrete surface to a smooth condition.
Decades of hearing "kadunk kadunk kadunk" as drivers drove across misaligned joints and then trying to mill them down only led to a greater use of asphalt here.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20256.0
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2017, 01:57:05 PM
Decades of hearing "kadunk kadunk kadunk" as drivers drove across misaligned joints and then trying to mill them down only led to a greater use of asphalt here.
But that sound gives the road character!
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2017, 03:04:22 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 11, 2017, 02:50:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2017, 02:44:31 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 11, 2017, 02:28:38 PM
All these years and we only have two types of road to lay down. :pan: I think our people at Dot need to go back to the writing board.
No, no, paulthemapguy just identified three different types of hydraulic concrete alone. I've also driven on graded dirt, oil-sealed, gravel, river rock, cobblestone, and brick roads. Et cetera.
And we haven't even discussed the different kinds of whitetopping yet.
Whitetopping? Please continue.
Click here. (http://bfy.tw/Bjnz)
Now that I know what it is, This seems like a good method of laying down pavement. instead of digging the old out and putting new down. (even though the ikd asphalt can be melted and reused as new asphalt, I wonder if thats where the different color asphalt comes in from pavement markings.)
Ah, the repetitive noise of concrete, the joints that sometimes cause a steering wheel to jolt out of your hand, the pull it creates while trying to navigate a straight line, the fact it seems to be repaired so shoddily...wait, where was I going with this?
Out East towards Little Rock AHTD uses concrete for a large section of I-40 and it hasn't seen much need for repairing in the maybe five + years seens its laying. We use longitudial grooves vs lat., I wonder why states use both to where it makes squares?
A lot of the NVH and durability problems with Portland cement concrete are functions not of the material itself, but rather the following:
* Lack of dowelling for smooth load transfer across joints (dowelling is a comparatively recent innovation and you can often see where it has been retrofitted by looking for "staples" of fresh concrete across transverse joints)
* Low subgrade bearing capacity (making no compromises on CBR costs money up front, but saves a lot of trouble down the road)
* Loose surface profile standards (Kansas' own example of "whisper concrete," a length of expressway K-96 between Wichita and Hutchinson that was built in the late 1990's, relied on a very tight surface profile standard)
* Poor subgrade sealing that allows water to percolate through joints and cause "mud pumping" (the traditional preventative, which is not cheap, is to apply a thin asphalt layer directly on top of the subgrade; in Kansas sealants have been tried, but on US 50 between Walton and Florence this approach failed, resulting in early slab cracking that had to be fixed with slab replacements, a dowel retrofit, and finally an asphalt overlay)
Some agencies use diamond grinding on concrete to restore a smooth surface profile; in Kansas this has been done on multiple lengths of I-235 in west Wichita. I personally don't care for this approach since it degrades steering feel. It results in a high-pitched whine which I can't hear (better than 90% hearing loss in both ears) but can still feel as a vibration through the steering wheel, and tracking is also affected because the tires try to follow the grooves. I would rather put up with a very restrained clump-clump-clump (taking into account the owning agency's track record of enforcing minimum bearing capacity, sealing, and surface profile during the initial construction) as a gentle reassurance that I will never have to deal with hydroplaning if it rains. Rutting is a major cause of hydroplaning on aged asphalt pavements and is one reason I am suspicious of asphalt in areas that receive torrential rain.
Bad NVH on very old concrete pavements in places like Washington state, New York, California, etc. is really a symptom of excess durability, like old porcelain enamel button copy signs that can last for well over fifty years but do not come anywhere close to meeting modern expectations of legibility and color fidelity at night. These pavements are usually cases where the agency designed and built for a 20- or 25-year life with good sealing and subgrade bearing capacity but a loosey-goosey surface profile standard, and then "gets lucky" and is able to double or triple service life but at the cost (to motorists) of having to accept surface roughness that does not comport well with modern expectations of ride quality and steering feel.
Quote from: I-90 on May 10, 2017, 04:03:58 PM
QuoteConcrete roads are highly durable and more environmentally friendly as compared to asphalt roads.
I question this statement. While asphalt is more obvious in its direct use of petroleum products, albeit generally the heaviest and least desirable fraction, it takes a significant amount of energy and resultant carbon emissions to make the portland cement that goes into concrete. Of course then you have to take into consideration a multitude of other factors, such as longevity (+concrete), recyclability (+asphalt), heat island (+concrete), noise (+asphalt), and others. But it doesn't seem so cut and dried.
Quote from: vdeane on May 14, 2017, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2017, 01:57:05 PM
Decades of hearing "kadunk kadunk kadunk" as drivers drove across misaligned joints and then trying to mill them down only led to a greater use of asphalt here.
But that sound gives the road character!
Heh. In 2014 we had the following exchange in a thread titled "If you could bring back one traditional highway practice, what would it be?" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11344.0)
I give you credit for consistency!
Quote from: vdeane on January 22, 2014, 04:34:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 21, 2014, 03:10:38 PMI'm wondering what you folks prefer about concrete road surfaces. I've generally preferred asphalt because, when maintained correctly, it's usually smoother and quieter, whereas on many concrete roads I find the seams a lot more noticeable to the point where your car makes what I've always thought of as a "clopping noise."
But I love the clopping noise!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2017, 06:20:09 AM
Out here in California concrete was used in copious amounts during the big building era of freeway construction. The concrete generally holds up very well, but it is loud and definitely isn't exactly something that probably been maintained as well as it should have over the decades (see $5.2 billion thread in Pacific Southwest). Other states like Arizona use rubberized asphalt in major urban areas which seems to be holding up decently out in the drier climates. Personally I like it because of how quiet and it made things commuting when I lived in the Valley, I was really surprised to see there actually some detractors who didn't like it. I can't imagine that the surfaces will hold up as well as the concrete in California, but ADOT has the money why not use it for maintenance?
ADOT's rubberized asphalt is generally a thin overlay on top of a standard PCCP road. They get the best of both worlds: a smooth, quiet surface that doesn't get ruts, but also lasts for many decades without needing full-depth reconstruction. The downside is that the upfront cost is higher than either method on its own. ADOT really doesn't have the money to spend, which is why this treatment is generally reserved for the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas, which have sales taxes dedicated to transportation funding.
asphalt is highly recyclable.
I wonder why lighting on the roadway surfaces haven't been introduced yet, maybe reflective paint is good enough
iPhone
That type of Seasick Cement is used between Gainesville and Denton. Some areas of the Cement is Seasick Cement. It is so noticeable that I was concerned that my car was malfunctioning. The road feels slightly uneven, but it does not make that thumping noise that happens in parts of Oklahoma City. Actually Interstate 35 in Cooke County has no obvious noise at all. It sounds similar to a worn out Asphalt road but since it is Cement Slabs it has a pulsing sound. But it is not loud thumping and the fact that I hear no whistle noise could mean that there are no grooves in that cement. It is possible that the grooves wore away and that the road is very old. ... or a new road with many traffic that wore it out quickly. Before I knew that there is such as thing called Seasick Cement, I thought it was an old and / or worn out road that was repaired so much that the entire road had been repaired but not replaced ... and that they did it smooth enough to not cause the thumping sound but it still results in the Seasick feeling. It is also possible that the road is not old at all, but is still worn out quickly because of the billions of vehicles on Interstate 35. Especially the stretch between Gainesville and Denton is so busy that when the frontage road has a red light, the line is so long it takes the entire ramp and cars are waiting in line on the shoulder.
Does Texas like to use Seasick Cement? The road surface seems to be a lower quality cement but the noise the road makes is loud. These roads are in U.S. 75 Denison, Texas and Loop 288 Denton, Texas. The quieter, older, more worn out Seasick Cement roads are U.S. 75 Sherman, Texas; I-35 Gainesville to Denton with Denton County's stretch slightly louder.
I do not know the type of Cement used in Spur 503 and U.S. 82 Sherman, Texas but it looks old.
Other posts I replied to:
I often refer to Asphalt roads as Tarmac roads, as this is what China refers to them as. I previously thought that other nations never use Cement roads until China news article referred to Ashpalt as Tarmac and Concrete as Cement. (Also, in Hong Kong, which drives the opposide side of the road of China, ... Street View reveals Cement bridges. ... This is unusual because other nations do not seem to use Cement road surface for anything, not even bridges. I might be wrong as I do not yet look at the maps often.) Naming Asphalt or Blacktop as Tarmac (or Blacktop) makes sense because when I think of Concrete: I think of Cement, not Ashpalt.
My preference is for Cement road surfaces almost anywhere. But I noticed that they have Tarmac around Bridges. They should probably have Tarmac there. Also, I noticed that when they add a bridge over the highway, they will add Cement to the road surface under the bridge. I disagree and think that they should have Tarmac. The reason why is because I agree with White Topping because it provides a foundation to the Cement roads. But whenever the Cement surface requires a complete replacement, then instead of digging it out, just put a new cement deck on top of the old cement deck. This should make the foundation even stronger but it makes the road taller, which decreases the clearance of the bridge. If the bridge is replaced the same time that the new Cement is added on top of the old Cement, then the height of the bridge could be raised and the clearance would not be lower.
Another feature I would like to see added to Cement Roads (if possible) is to heat them so that they can be de-iced.
And adding red brick to the outside of the shoulders, or even making the shoulders themselves red brick. Red Brick would make the perfect Rumble Strips.
I also like to see Zippers added to Cement Roads. I am not talking about Barrier Transfer Machines. I am talking about those metal things that expand if it gets hot. They are usually on bridges but the roads known as U.S. 69 and U.S. 75 north of Atoka, Oklahoma appear to have something very similar even though these zippers are part of the regular deck on the ground, not just part of a bridge.
I also like reflectors. They are useful at night especially around road work.
I have driven on roads in Missouri where the grooves do not go across the road. It is weird.
unrelated to previous posts, but it really annoys me when people think cement and concrete are the same thing.
Quote from: dfwmapper on May 17, 2017, 10:10:00 PM
ADOT's rubberized asphalt is generally a thin overlay on top of a standard PCCP road. They get the best of both worlds: a smooth, quiet surface that doesn't get ruts, but also lasts for many decades without needing full-depth reconstruction. The downside is that the upfront cost is higher than either method on its own. ADOT really doesn't have the money to spend, which is why this treatment is generally reserved for the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas, which have sales taxes dedicated to transportation funding.
Actually as far as I know not even Tucson has the rubberized asphalt on PCCP overlay construction; this is exclusive to the Phoenix metropolitan area.
I like the look of concrete over asphalt.
Concrete lasts longer than hot mix.
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2017, 01:57:05 PM
"Just spot attention such as joint repair."
In NY, we have found such attention to be problematic. Any drive across "repaired" concrete proves how difficult it can be to return a concrete surface to a smooth condition.
Decades of hearing "kadunk kadunk kadunk" as drivers drove across misaligned joints and then trying to mill them down only led to a greater use of asphalt here.
Probably the roughest concrete road I've ever driven is I-86 in the western portion of New York. I'm thinking of the area around Jamestown and Salamanca heading eastward.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2017, 12:40:32 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2017, 01:57:05 PM
"Just spot attention such as joint repair."
In NY, we have found such attention to be problematic. Any drive across "repaired" concrete proves how difficult it can be to return a concrete surface to a smooth condition.
Decades of hearing "kadunk kadunk kadunk" as drivers drove across misaligned joints and then trying to mill them down only led to a greater use of asphalt here.
Probably the roughest concrete road I've ever driven is I-86 in the western portion of New York. I'm thinking of the area around Jamestown and Salamanca heading eastward.
The big problem there was the bad relationship between the Senecas and the State. Last I heard, things were being worked out so the work could be done (if it hasn't already).
I drove on both road surfaces on a very hot day and the Tarmac, Blacktop, Hot Mix what ever you want to call it ... is too HOT! :-o
there's hot mix asphalt, and cold mix asphalt. almost never see cma though.
NYSDOT uses CMA on many rural two lane roads. We put a layer of HMA on top.
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2017, 01:06:36 PM
NYSDOT uses CMA on many rural two lane roads. We put a layer of HMA on top.
Still? I thought NYSDOT was moving away from CMA.
You can buy CMA in bags at the big home & hardware stores.
Quote from: Rothman on July 31, 2017, 02:41:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2017, 01:06:36 PM
NYSDOT uses CMA on many rural two lane roads. We put a layer of HMA on top.
Still? I thought NYSDOT was moving away from CMA.
Last I checked, cold in-place recycling is standard for VPP projects, at least in Region 1.
Quote from: froggie on May 11, 2017, 10:50:05 AM
Concrete's biggest weakness IMO is its noise....something that there's been a lot of research on in Minnesota and Iowa to find ways to tweak the concrete surface to reduce road noise. One idea that came out of Minnesota about 2 decades ago was dragging artificial turf across the surface as it's curing. MnDOT tested this on I-35W through Richfield when it was rebuilt ca. 1999.
Concrete pavement also in most cases is not smooth, even new or almost new (~5 years) pavements often have seams and little bumps that at least provide some annoyance to the ride. Older pavements often have more serious spalled sections and broken sections, and in many places you can see asphalt surfaces with the concrete joint bumps shadowing thru.
I just took a trip from Richmond to NW Indiana and noticed a lot of these issues in West Virginia, Ohio and Indiana (I-64, US-35, I-75, I-70, I-65, I-80). I think it is a good sampling of such problems everywhere, including my state.
I am more and more leaning to opposing the use of concrete (and most have steel rebar reinforcement) for new pavements. It just seems like most of the time they just don't "get it right", that there are roughness and other problems thru the life cycle of the pavement, and in many places pavements are quite noisy, sometimes making all sorts of odd and changing sounds. The noisiness also impacts homes and businesses in the area.
When it comes time to do a heavy rehab after 20-25 years or so, these projects are very expensive.
The New Jersey Turnpike demonstrates that full depth asphalt pavement is feasible and favorable on the busiest highways in the world, and on very old highways (it opened in 1951).
I wonder why the Greenville Southwest Bypass was built with asphalt and not concrete. Probably because of the low AADT? And, look at the I-840 eastern leg in Greensboro. It's all concrete.
Sometimes I see there's a mix of concrete and asphalt shoulders. I generally prefer it to be either asphalt or concrete, not mixed. That's my opinion.
And yes, I bumped this thread cause I had something to add to it.
The recent I-41 reconstruction project put concrete driving surface over the asphalt base. The soil conditions may have called for it.
Quote from: Big John on March 31, 2021, 10:13:03 PM
The recent I-41 reconstruction project put concrete driving surface over the asphalt base. The soil conditions may have called for it.
I've seen the same thing happen when they were building NC 540 just west of I-40 back in 2006.
Same thing with the eastern leg that I-840 got built.
Now the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway is experiencing the same thing.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 31, 2021, 10:07:50 PM
And yes, I bumped this thread cause I had something to add to it.
But you added nothing to the topic of "the difference between asphalt and concrete", except to say your preference.
This is the thread you want instead (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4941.0). Yes, it would still be a bump, but at least it would be more on-topic.