This is kind of loaded...but I've thought and googled on this rare-to-occasionally for a few years now... What's the reason behind Indiana using so much grooved concrete pavement, where other states use asphalt? I prefer the concrete, but sometimes I wish for asphalt when I get tired of the noise from driving over the grooved pavement. This is a mystery to me, which has puzzled me for years now... Why do some of the concrete bridges in Indiana have concrete extending a couple hundred feet either side of the bridge? And why is the pavement also concrete for a couple hundred feet either side of (and underneath) some overpasses on an otherwise asphalt roadway? Why put grooves in the concrete anyway?
Grooves provide friction between the roadway and tire to improve traction. At overpasses, I suspect the reason for a short sections of concrete is to maintain height clearance at an overpass. Adding 90 mm (3-1/2") of asphalt over a concrete highway is a significant profile increase.
The overall cost of a concrete roadway can be cheaper. Sometimes asphalt is used because it's cheaper overall, and sometimes just because it's cheaper up front. Indiana and the Midwest have a harsh climate, hard soils and are far from major oil refineries but have plenty of limestone for making concrete, and thus use a lot of it. Florida presumably has softer soil and is closer to refineries, and has a gentle climate, and uses a lot of asphalt. The only places I've seen concrete in Florida are downtown Orlando and Miami.
There's a technique for soft soils now to put down asphalt and then concrete on top of it, but that was after I-394 was built; the center section was asphalt over soft soils, and each end was concrete over hard soils.
Concrete on either side- I've seen it here where a bridge is rebuilt, they'll rebuild the road a bit on either side and will use concrete. As for under overpasses they might have put an asphalt overlay on the rest of the road, but couldn't under the bridge do to clearance issues.
Grooves are to rough it up to provide skid resistance. A newer techinque is to use weighted astroturf or burlap rather than a fine metal rake, this produces a more tolerable low rumble instead of a high pitched whine.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on September 07, 2012, 01:31:53 PM
At overpasses, I suspect the reason for a short sections of concrete is to maintain height clearance at an overpass. Adding 90 mm (3-1/2") of asphalt over a concrete highway is a significant profile increase.
that is the precise reason in California; I'd imagine it is the same elsewhere.
I feel like the difference is only about 2 inches, though.
Even if the initial asphalt is only 2" thick, it has to be repaved pretty often, and they just put a new layer over the top. A couple of repavings down the road and the height becomes a problem.
That problem is pretty easily avoidable by simply milling the asphalt off of the concrete prior to repaving. It is possible to cold mill concrete pavement as well prior to paving it but that does have an effect on the pavement structure which could be negative.
Concrete on either side of the bridge is not actually the bridge, it's "approach slabs." That should point you in the right direction on that. Concrete below the overpass is because that's the original pavement that was there, and asphalt is typically added on top of concrete rather than replacing it. Adding asphalt under the overpass would reduce the clearance by 3" which can be a difference maker for some trucks.
Quote from: Mdcastle on September 07, 2012, 01:37:24 PM
There's a technique for soft soils now to put down asphalt and then concrete on top of it, but that was after I-394 was built; the center section was asphalt over soft soils, and each end was concrete over hard soils.
This is called white topping, right?
Quote from: Steve on September 07, 2012, 05:03:24 PM
Adding asphalt under the overpass would reduce the clearance by 3" which can be a difference maker for some trucks.
I can't say for sure, but I thought they did it to increase the bridge clearance by two or three inches (or whatever). If I remember correctly, they did the under bridge concrete work across the state in a relatively short span of time so I just assumed that is why they did it. When Indiana resurfaces highways, as with most every other state, they mill the old pavement down before laying the new surface so there should not result in any reduction in clearance.
Thanks guys... I had suspected some of this, although I did not consider the clearance issue underneath bridges.
Quote from: Steve on September 07, 2012, 05:03:24 PM
Concrete on either side of the bridge is not actually the bridge, it's "approach slabs." That should point you in the right direction on that. Concrete below the overpass is because that's the original pavement that was there, and asphalt is typically added on top of concrete rather than replacing it. Adding asphalt under the overpass would reduce the clearance by 3" which can be a difference maker for some trucks.
And don't forget that in the colder climates, there could be several inches of packed snow/ice on the roadway in the winter that reduces the clearance even more at times.
Quote from: phildmills on September 07, 2012, 11:13:53 AM
...sometimes I wish for asphalt when I get tired of the noise from driving over the grooved pavement.
Not to completely dissect your question here, but I wonder if cutting the cement with seemingly random grooves, rather than fixed-width and fixed-spaced grooves, might reduce road noise. There's spans or brides in which the noise is particularly grating.
I only suggest this idea because repetitive "road noise" can be cancelled out somewhat by tire tread patterns which also use non-fixed width tread blocks, grooves, and sipes that are of varying sizes (although they appear similar, usually the inner or outer tread blocks on recent tires are not equally sized. (It should be noted this isn't typically not found on "cheaper" tires or heavy-duty truck tires.)
On the other hand, there's not much incentive to use extra time and expense on this, because there's no real financial benefit, post-construction...but just an idea that suddenly popped in my head.
Quote from: kphoger on September 07, 2012, 05:09:39 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on September 07, 2012, 01:37:24 PM
There's a technique for soft soils now to put down asphalt and then concrete on top of it, but that was after I-394 was built; the center section was asphalt over soft soils, and each end was concrete over hard soils.
This is called white topping, right?
White topping, IIRC, is a type of resurfacing where concrete is the material being laid on top of the existing pavement instead of asphalt.
I have heard of some places placing asphalt under concrete when the pavement is being placed from the ground up on new or complete removal and replacement projects.
It is possible to reduce noise by changing the grooves. NY does this with newer concrete and has re-grooved some older concrete (I still remember with great sadness when the Thruway did this between I-490 and NY 332, especially since the noise was unique and not the usual whine). The noise never bothered me, but with the exception of I-390 between Mount Morris and the Thruway, NY hasn't had many (none that I traveled with any kind of regularity at least) concrete segments longer than 5 miles until recently; they pretty much all were in the Southern Tier.
Quote from: Mdcastle on September 07, 2012, 01:37:24 PM
The overall cost of a concrete roadway can be cheaper. Sometimes asphalt is used because it's cheaper overall, and sometimes just because it's cheaper up front. Indiana and the Midwest have a harsh climate, hard soils and are far from major oil refineries but have plenty of limestone for making concrete, and thus use a lot of it. Florida presumably has softer soil and is closer to refineries, and has a gentle climate, and uses a lot of asphalt. The only places I've seen concrete in Florida are downtown Orlando and Miami.
There's a technique for soft soils now to put down asphalt and then concrete on top of it, but that was after I-394 was built; the center section was asphalt over soft soils, and each end was concrete over hard soils.
Concrete on either side- I've seen it here where a bridge is rebuilt, they'll rebuild the road a bit on either side and will use concrete. As for under overpasses they might have put an asphalt overlay on the rest of the road, but couldn't under the bridge do to clearance issues.
Grooves are to rough it up to provide skid resistance. A newer techinque is to use weighted astroturf or burlap rather than a fine metal rake, this produces a more tolerable low rumble instead of a high pitched whine.
most urban areas in Florida have concrete interstates. I-95 reconstuction in Brevard County was concrete too
Here in New Jersey grooved concrete pavement is only found on I-287 from exit 47-66 and driving this stretch has a different whine on your car, but most roads use ungrooved concrete pavement like I-280 from exit 15-17 and I-78 from exit 52-58 and driving these highways on their concrete section makes a standard noise
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on October 22, 2012, 08:41:02 PM
Here in New Jersey grooved concrete pavement is only found on I-287 from exit 47-66 and driving this stretch has a different whine on your car
It used to be MUCH louder until NJDOT diamond grinded the whole section of roadway in an effort to make it quieter.
I like the concrete here in Indiana. One of the local towns has a stretch of 50 year old concrete that's not in that bad of shape. In fact with some work could be repaired to last 30 plus more years.
There were a few issues with trucks hitting overpasses after reasphalting projects on interstates in Indiana. My uncle - a former truck driver, hit an overpass after a resurfacing project that added apparently quite a few inches to the existing pavement, and the height guides and signs had not been updated. The concrete helps maintain height - no need to check after each resurfacing.
As for the concrete pavement at the bridges - it's typically longer than just the approaches. Here is an aerial along I-74: http://goo.gl/maps/Cb3D2. The concrete extends further past the typical approach, and includes an asphalt cushion. Some others on I-74 and I-70 were in a serious state of disrepair - I know one along I-74 was just reasphalted and the other was repaired but is still in awful condition. Not sure on the need for these.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 22, 2012, 11:26:22 PM
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on October 22, 2012, 08:41:02 PM
Here in New Jersey grooved concrete pavement is only found on I-287 from exit 47-66 and driving this stretch has a different whine on your car
It used to be MUCH louder until NJDOT diamond grinded the whole section of roadway in an effort to make it quieter.
You are right about I-287 from exit 47 to 66, but I-78 from exit 52-58 and exit 3 to PA state line has it concrete pavement being paved with asphalt, but NJDOT needs to look at INDOT and Caltrans for concrete pavement rehab. :D
Quote from: formulanone on September 13, 2012, 04:46:22 PM
Quote from: phildmills on September 07, 2012, 11:13:53 AM
...sometimes I wish for asphalt when I get tired of the noise from driving over the grooved pavement.
Not to completely dissect your question here, but I wonder if cutting the cement with seemingly random grooves, rather than fixed-width and fixed-spaced grooves, might reduce road noise. There's spans or brides in which the noise is particularly grating.
I only suggest this idea because repetitive "road noise" can be cancelled out somewhat by tire tread patterns which also use non-fixed width tread blocks, grooves, and sipes that are of varying sizes (although they appear similar, usually the inner or outer tread blocks on recent tires are not equally sized. (It should be noted this isn't typically not found on "cheaper" tires or heavy-duty truck tires.)
On the other hand, there's not much incentive to use extra time and expense on this, because there's no real financial benefit, post-construction...but just an idea that suddenly popped in my head.
Yes. When the grooves are arranged in a uniform or repetitive pattern, tires will produce a very tonal (musical note) sound as they impact the grooves. This is because the sound pressure is being centered on a narrow-band frequency, rather than broad-band. If the pattern is broken into a random arrangement, the tread will no longer vibrate harmonically, therefore we will not hear a dominant tone.
Quote from: kkt on September 07, 2012, 04:23:55 PM
Even if the initial asphalt is only 2" thick, it has to be repaved pretty often, and they just put a new layer over the top. A couple of repavings down the road and the height becomes a problem.
In Terre Haute they use black top. They've redone the black top so much that the curbs are hardly noticeable in some areas.
Quote from: US 41 on January 25, 2013, 11:43:03 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 07, 2012, 04:23:55 PM
Even if the initial asphalt is only 2" thick, it has to be repaved pretty often, and they just put a new layer over the top. A couple of repavings down the road and the height becomes a problem.
In Terre Haute they use black top. They've redone the black top so much that the curbs are hardly noticeable in some areas.
I always thought they milled the pavement before pouring in new asphalt. For example, they mill down however many inches and replace it with the same height of new asphalt. I don't see why they would skip the milling process, as just pouring new asphalt on top of the existing pavement would make for a big bump as you drive onto and drive off the new pavement. I've personally never seen it done this way.
I've commonly seen city street departments and county road commissions overlay existing asphalt without milling it.
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 25, 2013, 07:34:13 PM
I've commonly seen city street departments and county road commissions overlay existing asphalt without milling it.
Interesting. I have, however, seen microsurfacing done and it adds very small height to the pavement profile, about 3/8 inch.
Right. When I was a kid in the 70s, the city of South Bend used to "slurry seal" the streets -- a thin layer of black goo right on top of the existing street. Voila, instant "new" pavement. It didn't last as long as a proper layer of standard asphalt, though.
^^ And when they are repaving in South Bend, they always mill first. If they aren't milling in your area, they should be. It's short-sighted to slap a new layer on top.
Quote from: mobilene on January 25, 2013, 08:32:43 PM
Right. When I was a kid in the 70s, the city of South Bend used to "slurry seal" the streets -- a thin layer of black goo right on top of the existing street. Voila, instant "new" pavement. It didn't last as long as a proper layer of standard asphalt, though.
That's what the town does to my street every decade. Each time they claim "it will last 50 years"; invariably, it will need to be replaced in one or two, but they won't get around to it.
Indiana's older/oldest grooved concrete pavements make the most annoying moan (you can't call it a whine) I've ever heard. Anyone who knows me well, and there are a few on here who do, know I vastly prefer concrete to asphalt, but I greatly dislike Indiana's older grooved concrete pavements.
By contrast, PA's older grooved concrete makes a rather nice high-pitched whistle. Sadly most of what I'm talking about has been paved over or diamond grinded in the last few years. I blame PAHotmix.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on January 26, 2013, 10:57:28 PM
Indiana's older/oldest grooved concrete pavements make the most annoying moan (you can't call it a whine) I've ever heard. Anyone who knows me well, and there are a few on here who do, know I vastly prefer concrete to asphalt, but I greatly dislike Indiana's older grooved concrete pavements.
Personally I liked the moaning pavement; it seemed like it had a better tone difference at different speeds.
Seems like there were one or two bridges in Illinois that had a similar moan.
For annoying pavement sound, I would nominate SB I-65 near US 30; it has a sound which I think is best described as a some combination of a groan and an off-center grinding noise.
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 26, 2013, 11:48:34 PM
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on January 26, 2013, 10:57:28 PM
Indiana's older/oldest grooved concrete pavements make the most annoying moan (you can't call it a whine) I've ever heard. Anyone who knows me well, and there are a few on here who do, know I vastly prefer concrete to asphalt, but I greatly dislike Indiana's older grooved concrete pavements.
Personally I liked the moaning pavement; it seemed like it had a better tone difference at different speeds.
Seems like there were one or two bridges in Illinois that had a similar moan.
For annoying pavement sound, I would nominate SB I-65 near US 30; it has a sound which I think is best described as a some combination of a groan and an off-center grinding noise.
I love the sound, too. I started a thread about it.
The western half of I-70, from Terre Haute into Indianapolis, has at least a dozen sections of concrete that makes your tires sing. The groove pattern is in 3 inch repetitions, so your tires make a lower-pitched buzzing sound than the high-pitched shrill when the grooves are 1/2 or 3/4 inch apart. It sounds somewhat like a violin sound is coming from the tires.
Illinois almost exclusively uses the 3/4 inch grooves. However, some of the bridges on I-270, the first segment of IL 255 (Alton Bypass), and the approach to the Clark Bridge have a groove pattern that repeats at 6 inches, causing your tires to make the most eerie sound that can be described as a combination of a vocal type of sound and a continuous droning tone. It's fun to drive over the pavement at different speeds and listen to change in pitch. It becomes more of a growl the slower you go.
Post Merge: January 27, 2013, 04:01:12 PM
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on January 26, 2013, 10:57:28 PM
Indiana's older/oldest grooved concrete pavements make the most annoying moan (you can't call it a whine) I've ever heard. Anyone who knows me well, and there are a few on here who do, know I vastly prefer concrete to asphalt, but I greatly dislike Indiana's older grooved concrete pavements.
By contrast, PA's older grooved concrete makes a rather nice high-pitched whistle. Sadly most of what I'm talking about has been paved over or diamond grinded in the last few years. I blame PAHotmix.
I like all the sounds. Missouri uses the 1/2 inch groove spacing. Most states (including, I think, Pennsylvania) use the 3/4 inch spacing. Either one of those groove patterns does cause your tires to produce that nice whistling sound. It is the wider spaces that causes the deep, tonal moaning (more of a buzz, actually).
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on January 26, 2013, 10:57:28 PM
Indiana's older/oldest grooved concrete pavements make the most annoying moan (you can't call it a whine) I've ever heard. Anyone who knows me well, and there are a few on here who do, know I vastly prefer concrete to asphalt, but I greatly dislike Indiana's older grooved concrete pavements.
By contrast, PA's older grooved concrete makes a rather nice high-pitched whistle. Sadly most of what I'm talking about has been paved over or diamond grinded in the last few years. I blame PAHotmix.
The only roads that are left with older grooved pavement are I-78 from exit 1-10 and I-181 from exit 145 to 151, but on the Newer concrete roads that Penndot has opened within the past 10-20 years are Pa-33 from William Penn to I-78, I-81 exit 187-191 I-476 from exit 16-20, and US-22 from Irving street to Schonersville road these roads have high-pitched whistle with out the groves on the concrete itself :D
Is there a tech document about the grooving of concrete roadways - such as from a DOT?
Texas uses 1" spacing. Texas might be the last state still consistently using uniform transverse tine in a pitch greater than 1/2", all other states that I have been to have switched to random tine or longitudinal tine. Granted, I haven't been out west, but I doubt anything is much different out there.
Mamba205, Illinois has switched to random tine for the most part. Every once in awhile they use 3/4" spaced uniform, for instance, the fairly recently opened Rock Island-Milan Parkway in the Quad Cities.
I've noticed that in IL, not only is the tine random, but it's done at an angle, presumably to reduce noise.
Interesting. I did find this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=qBmbZHesnHIC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=longitudinal+tine+grooving&source=bl&ots=vh42afIgWK&sig=ghn-SUI589ovBPphXtp1FtO0lOg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=asARUavfKZOy0AGM4ICgBw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=longitudinal%20tine%20grooving&f=false) to be interesting.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on February 05, 2013, 08:48:16 PM
Texas uses 1" spacing. Texas might be the last state still consistently using uniform transverse tine in a pitch greater than 1/2", all other states that I have been to have switched to random tine or longitudinal tine. Granted, I haven't been out west, but I doubt anything is much different out there.
Mamba205, Illinois has switched to random tine for the most part. Every once in awhile they use 3/4" spaced uniform, for instance, the fairly recently opened Rock Island-Milan Parkway in the Quad Cities.
I've noticed that in IL, not only is the tine random, but it's done at an angle, presumably to reduce noise.
I've never seen the skewed (angled) tining in Illinois. It must not be used here in Springfield and the Metro East, the areas where I reside. However, I have seen the random spacing. A good example of a properly random transverse tined pavement is Governors' Parkway in Edwardsville.
What concerns me is this; The groove spaces are randomized to prevent a discrete frequency from being produced, which we hear as a tonal sound. To achieve this toneless quality, a mathematical formula must be used to ensure the pattern is random and only repeats at intervals longer than a typical wheelbase (say 8 feet). However, the state DOT will sometimes use a random pattern that repeats over a short distance, for example, at 6 inches. Real examples of this are on I-270 in Illinois and the Buckman Bridge in Florida. Their goal was to randomize the groove pattern, but it failed, and it's easy to see why. When driving over this groove pattern, your tires make the strangest tonal sound. It fills the car interior and can be heard from a mile away. This is because the sound pressure is centered on a narrowband frequency at the lower end of human hearing frequencies, so the sound is rich in harmonics.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on February 05, 2013, 09:31:33 PM
Interesting. I did find this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=qBmbZHesnHIC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=longitudinal+tine+grooving&source=bl&ots=vh42afIgWK&sig=ghn-SUI589ovBPphXtp1FtO0lOg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=asARUavfKZOy0AGM4ICgBw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=longitudinal%20tine%20grooving&f=false) to be interesting.
See the first paragraph of page two.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/specificationsoffice/Implemented/WorkBooks/History/Jan13/Files/4000300.impl.pdf
The groove pattern listed is responsible for producing the noisiest driving surface possible. I personally like the sound, but DOTs are all for toneless, quiet pavements and this is not one of them.
I haven't found specifications for Ohio, but they have recently switched from transverse tine to longitudinal tine on all concrete surfaces - bridges and all.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on February 06, 2013, 10:16:34 AM
I haven't found specifications for Ohio, but they have recently switched from transverse tine to longitudinal tine on all concrete surfaces - bridges and all.
What about saw grooving?
From I've seen in California was that most of the Newwer concrete pavement is mostly grooved, and examples of grooved pavement is I-5 south from LA county line down to the Costa Mesa Fwy exit, and I-405 to CA-1 Or I-110 from the 91 fwy to the 10 fwy . Perhaps Caltrans made grooved concrete pavement as standard on newer freeways within the past 10-20 years, but PennDot and NJDOT prefered ungrooved concrete pavement like I-78 from exit 51-75, and Exit 52-58 https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_105b_04.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_105b_04.jpg) https://www.aaroads.com/california/images110/i-110_nb_exit_016_03t.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images110/i-110_nb_exit_016_03t.jpg)