IPRF An Research Report Innovative Pavement Research Foundation Airport Concrete Pavement Technology Program MAINE Highway Materials—Concrete Airfield Pavement IPRF Project 01-G-002-05-3 REVIEW OF STATE HIGHWAY MATERIALS FOR CONCRETE AIRFIELD PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION Programs Management Office 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, IL 60077 August 2010 IPRF An Research Report Innovative Pavement Research Foundation Airport Concrete Pavement Technology Program MAINE Highway Materials—Concrete Airfield Pavement IPRF Project 01-G-002-05-3 REVIEW OF STATE HIGHWAY MATERIALS FOR CONCRETE AIRFIELD PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION Principal Investigator Thomas J. Van Dam, P.E., Ph.D. Contributing Authors James M. Krstulovich Linda M. Pierce, P.E., Ph.D. Kurt D. Smith, P.E. David G. Peshkin, P.E. Applied Pavement Technology, Inc. 115 W. Main Street, Suite 400 Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 398-3977 Programs Management Office 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, IL 60077 August 2010 This state portfolio has been prepared by the research team under IPRF project 01-G-002-05-3. The purpose of this document is to provide engineers with a “tool” for initial determination of the suitability of state specified materials for concrete pavement airport construction funded under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program. It is emphasized that this document only considers the materials aspects of the specifications, and that the means and methods as specified under FAA AC 150/5370-10C must be followed. Additionally, the engineer must independently confirm the suitability of the state-specified material, and verify that neither the state nor the FAA specification has been subsequently modified since the time of this review. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented within. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Federal Aviation Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Highway Materials—Concrete Airfield Pavement Maine TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 Classification Groups .............................................................................................. 1 Group 1 ................................................................................................................ 2 Group 2 ................................................................................................................ 2 Group 3 ................................................................................................................ 4 Group 4 ................................................................................................................ 7 ASTM Versus AASHTO Standards ......................................................................... 7 2. Summary and Comparison of SHA Materials ................................... 10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Example of SHA material standard meeting Group 1. ...................................... 2 Table 2. Example of SHA material standard meeting Group 2. ...................................... 3 Table 3. Example of SHA material standard meeting Group 3. ...................................... 4 Table 3. Example of SHA material standard meeting Group 3 (continued). ................... 5 Table 4. FAA and Idaho DOT coarse aggregate gradation requirements. ..................... 6 Table 5. FAA and Idaho DOT aggregate gradation requirements. ................................. 6 Table 6. Example of SHA material standard meeting Group 4. ...................................... 8 Table 7. “Equivalent” ASTM and AASHTO designations for test procedures or methods. ... 9 Table 8. Summary of applicable Maine state specifications to FAA items.................... 10 Item P-154, Subbase Course ................................................................................... 11 Item P-208, Aggregate Base Course ....................................................................... 15 Item P-209, Crushed Aggregate Base Course ......................................................... 18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Gradation plot comparing FAA Item P-209 to ADOT Base, Class 1. ................ 9 i Highway Materials—Concrete Airfield Pavements Maine 1. INTRODUCTION In several of its advisory circulars (AC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cites the allowable use of state highway agency (SHA) materials for certain airfield pavements subjected to specific traffic types. Maximizing the use of acceptable SHA materials on FAA projects can result in significant cost savings. This review of the Alabama DOT materials specifications, conducted under IPRF Project 01-G-002-05-3, Highway Materials – Concrete Airfield Pavements, has been completed to provide guidance to engineers and contractors on what materials might be acceptable for the construction of concrete airfield pavements, and where they can be applied. It is noted that not all SHA-specified materials correspond to the FAA items under consideration. Specific FAA items considered in this review include: • Item P-154 – Subbase Course • Item P-219 – Recycled Concrete • Item P-155 – Lime-Treated Subgrade Aggregate Base Course • Item P-157 – Cement Kiln Dust • Item P-301 – Soil-Cement Base (CKD) Treated Subgrade Course • Item P-158 – Fly Ash Treated • Item P-304 – Cement-Treated Base Subgrade Course • Item P-208 – Aggregate Subbase • Item P-306 – Econocrete Base • Item P-209 – Crushed Aggregate Course (Lean Mix Concrete Base Subbase Course) • Item P-211 – Lime Rock Base • Item P-401/403 – Plant Mix Course Bituminous Pavements • Item P-213 – Sand-Clay Base Course • Item P-501 – Portland Cement Concrete Pavement This document provides engineers with a “tool” for initial determination of the suitability of state specified materials for airport construction funded under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program. It is emphasized that this document only considers the materials aspects of the specifications, and that the means and methods as specified under FAA AC 150/5370-10C must be followed. Additionally, the engineer using this document must independently confirm the suitability of the SHA-specified material, and verify that neither the state nor the FAA specification has been subsequently modified since the time of this review. Classification Groups In this document, the material standards and special provisions for each SHA were classified into four categories based on how well they met the prevailing FAA item. The four categories are: • Group 1 – The material meets or exceeds the requirement of the respective FAA standard and differs only by the common designation and should be acceptable for use. • Group 2 – The material does not meet the FAA standard, but should be acceptable for use on airfields supporting aircraft less than 60,000 lbs maximum takeoff weight. • Group 3 – The material does not meet the FAA standard, but might be used subject to specific considerations (improvement to controlling material characteristic). • Group 4 – The material does not meet the FAA standard. ME-1 Highway Materials—Concrete Airfield Pavements Maine The following describes the process by which each SHA material standard and special provision was categorized into the four groups. Group 1 As described above, Group 1 includes SHA material standards and special provisions that meet or exceed the test methods and material requirements of the equivalent FAA item and thus may be considered for use on FAA projects with no modifications or revisions. For example, a comparison of California DOT Section 24, Lime Stabilization with FAA Item P-155, Lime- Treated Subgrade is shown in table 1. In this comparison, the FAA Item P-155 requires that the lime be in accordance with ASTM C977, Standard Specification for Lime for Soil Stabilization. This is the same requirement as specified for the California lime stabilized material. All other FAA requirements are also met in the California DOT specification, therefore, these two specifications are considered equivalent and the California specified material was assigned a Group 1 categorization and may be considered as equivalent to FAA Item P-155. Table 1. Example of SHA material standard meeting Group 1. LIME-TREATED SUBGRADE Item California DOT FAA Agency Specification Section 24, Lime Stabilization Item P-155, Lime-Treated Subgrade Description This work shall consist of mixing lime and One or more courses of a mixture of soil, water with soil and compacting the mixture. lime, and water. Test Methods • ASTM C977 • ASTM C977 Referenced Materials • Soil • Lime • Lime • Water • Water Relevant Material Lime: Lime: Requirement(s) Lime shall conform to the requirements in • Hydrated lime meeting ASTM C977 ASTM C977, except that when a 250-gram • Commercial lime slurry consisting of test sample of quicklime is dry sieved in a hydrated lime meeting the following: mechanical sieve shaker for 10 minutes ±30 – Grade 1 “dry solids content” ≥ 31% seconds, it shall conform to the following – Grade 2 “dry solids content” ≥ 35% grading requirements: – Chemical composition, ≥ 70% CaO and MgO Sieve % Passing Residue, 3/8 in. 98 – 100 Sieve % Retained #100 0 – 25 #6 0.0 #200 0 – 14 #10 ≤ 1.0 #30 ≤ 2 5 Group 2 SHA material standards and special provisions categorized as Group 2 include materials that do not meet the FAA standard but could be used on concrete airfield pavements supporting aircraft less than 60,000 lbs maximum takeoff weight. An example of a SHA material meeting a Group 2 classification is shown in table 2. In this table, the Alabama DOT Section 301, Soil, Soil Aggregate, and Aggregate, Base and Subbases is compared to FAA Item P-154, Subbase Course. FAA Item P-154 requires that the subbase material meet ASTM D4318, Standard Method of Test for Determining the Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, while the Alabama specification requires the material to meet AASHTO T 89 and T 90, Standard ME-2 Highway Materials—Concrete Airfield Pavements Maine Method of Test for Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils and Standard Method of Test for Determining the Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils, respectively. The two specifications differ in aggregate gradation requirements; however, this difference was not deemed to be significant regarding performance for pavements carrying aircraft weighing 60,000 lbs or less since the SHA-specified material is used for pavements constructed to withstand 80,000-lb truck loads. Therefore in this case, the Alabama DOT Section 301, Soil, Soil Aggregate, and Aggregate, Base and Subbases might be considered as a suitable replacement for FAA Item P- 154, Subbase Course for pavements serving aircraft weighing less than 60,000 lbs. Table 2. Example of SHA material standard meeting Group 2. SUBBASE COURSE Item Alabama DOT FAA Agency Specification Section 301, Soil, Soil Aggregate, and Item P-154, Subbase Course Aggregate, Base and Subbases Description Base and subbase materials consist of Subbase course composed of granular natural soil, natural soil and natural materials constructed on prepared aggregate combinations, manufactured subgrade or underlying course. aggregates, or any combination of these with or without a stabilizing agent. Test Methods • AASHTO T 89 • ASTM D4318 Referenced • AASHTO T 90 Materials • Soil • Aggregate • Soil aggregate • Aggregate Relevant Material Granular soil material: Subbase material: Requirement(s) • Granular soil material shall be of the • Subbase material shall consist of hard kind and general character of sand- durable particles or fragments of clay, topsoil, sand, soft sand rock, and granular aggregates blended with fine so on, or a combination of these. sand, clay, stone dust, or other similar • Quality requirements: binding or filler materials. – Clay content, range • Quality requirements: o Type A, 2 – 18% – Free from vegetable matter, lumps Type B, 1 – 18% or excessive amounts of clay, and o Type C, 1 – 16% other objectionable or foreign o – Liquid Limit ≤ 25 substances. – Plasticity Index ≤ 6 • Material passing the #40: – Liquid Limit ≤ 25 – Plasticity Index ≤ 6 • Material finer than 0.02 mm shall be < 3%. Relevant Material Soil aggregate material: • Gradation Requirements: Requirement(s) • Soil aggregate material shall be of various types, such as clay gravel, clay Sieve % Passing gravel-sand, float gravel, soft sand 3-in. 100 rock, and so on. #10 20 – 100 • Quality requirements: #40 5 – 60 – Clay content, range #200 0 – 8 Type A, 2 – 15% o Type B, 1 – 14% o Type C, 1 – 12% o – Liquid Limit ≤ 26 – Plasticity Index ≤ 6 ME-3 Highway Materials—Concrete Airfield Pavements Maine Group 3 Group 3 materials include SHA-specified materials that, with some modification, would meet the salient material specifications as identified in the relevant FAA items. SHA material specifications that were identified as meeting Group 3 included all of the salient material characteristics of the analogous FAA item, but differed slightly in material specifications (i.e., aggregate gradation, liquid limit, or plasticity index), or excluded several of the material characteristics that conceivably could be added to the SHA material specification to meet the FAA item requirements. The distinguishing feature of a Group 3 classification is that the SHA- specified material could meet the FAA item requirements with relatively little effort. An example of a SHA material meeting a Group 3 classification is shown in table 3. In this table, FAA Item P-501, Portland Cement Concrete Pavement is compared to Idaho DOT Section 409, Portland Cement Concrete Pavement. As can be seen, the two specifications closely align, with the FAA Item P-501 requiring that the aggregate meet ASTM C131 (LA Wear), that the cement shall meet ASTM C150, C595, or C1157, and that the pozzolan material shall meet ASTM C618. In comparison, the Idaho specification requires that the aggregate shall meet AASHTO T 96 (Standard Method of Testing for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine), AASHTO M 85 (Standard Specification for Portland Cement) or M 240 (Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cement), which are equivalent to ASTM C150 (Standard Specification for Portland Cement) and C595 (Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cement), respectively. The Idaho specification does not specify a requirement for pozzolanic materials. But as can be seen in tables 4 and 5, the gradations between the two specifications differ slightly, but not so much so that there is a range of gradations that would meet both specifications. Table 3. Example of SHA material standard meeting Group 3. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT Item Idaho DOT FAA Agency Specification Section 409, Portland Cement Concrete Item P-501, Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Pavement Description This work shall consist of constructing a Pavement course composed of portland pavement composed of portland cement cement concrete, with or without concrete. reinforcement. Test Methods • AASHTO M 6 • ASTM C33 Referenced • AASHTO M 80 • ASTM C131 • AASHTO M 85 or AASHTO M 240 • ASTM C150, ASTM C595, or • AASHTO T 96 ASTM C1157 • AASHTO T 176 • ASTM C618 • AASHTO T 303 • Idaho T-15 Materials • Portland cement • Fine and coarse aggregate • Water • Cement, fly ash, natural pozzolan, or • Aggregate ground blast furnace slag • Concrete admixtures • Water • Fly ash • Cover material for curing • Concrete curing materials • Admixtures ME-4 Highway Materials—Concrete Airfield Pavements Maine Table 3. Example of SHA material standard meeting Group 3 (continued). PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT Item Idaho DOT FAA Relevant Material Coarse aggregate: Coarse aggregate: Requirement(s) • Aggregates shall be reasonably free • Crushed or uncrushed gravel, crushed from wood, roots, bark, soft or stone, air-cooled blast furnace slag, or disintegrated pieces, or other crushed recycled PCC. detrimental matter. • Coarse aggregate shall meet ASTM • Blend sand may be used to correct C33. deficiencies in gradation. • Quality requirements: • Quality requirements: – Wear (C131), max loss – Wear, max loss: 35% o Used as surface course, 40% – Degradation (Idaho T-15): o Used as base course, 50% Percent passing the #200: o • Original: 5 – 8; Fine aggregate: Final ≤ Original + 5 • Fine aggregate shall meet ASTM C33. • Original: 9; Final ≤ 14 • Original: 10; Final ≤ 15 Portland cement: Sand equivalent: • Type I, II, III, or V meeting ASTM C150 o • Original: ≥ 36; Final ≥ 30 • Type IS or IP meeting ASTM C595 • Original: 30 – 35; Final ≥ 25 • Type GU, HE, HS, MH, or LH meeting • Deleterious content requirements, max ASTM C1157 content: – Clay lumps, 0.5% – Clay lumps/friable particles, 2.0% – Coal/lignite, 1.0% – Minus #200 material, 1.0% – Flat, elongated particles (5:1), 15% – Other, 5.0% Fine aggregate: • Aggregates shall be reasonably free from wood, roots, bark, soft or disintegrated pieces, or other detrimental matter. • Quality requirements: – Soundness meeting AASHTO M 6 – Sand equivalent ≥ 70 • Deleterious content requirements, max content: – Clay lumps, 1.0% – Coal/lignite, 1.0% – Other, 5.0% • Degradation (Idaho T-15): – Percent passing the #200: Original: 5 – 8; o Final ≤ Original + 5 Original: 9; Final ≤ 14 o Original: 10; Final ≤ 15 o – Sand equivalent: Original: ≥ 36; Final ≥ 30 o Original: 30 – 35; Final ≥ 25 o Portland cement: • Type I, II, III portland cement meeting AASHTO M 85. • Type IP, P, I(PM) blended cement meeting AASHTO M 240. ME-5 Highway Materials—Concrete Airfield Pavements Maine Table 4. FAA and Idaho DOT coarse aggregate gradation requirements. % Passing FAA ITD Sieve 2” 1” 1-1/2” 3/4” 1” 2a 2b 3 42 52 max1 max max1 max max 2-1/2” 100 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 100 2” 90–100 -- 100 -- -- -- -- -- 100 95–100 1-1/2” 35–70 100 90–100 -- 100 -- -- 100 95–100 -- 1” 0–15 95–100 20–55 100 95–100 100 100 95–100 -- 35–70 3/4” -- -- 0–15 90–100 -- 95–100 80–100 -- 35–70 -- 1/2” 0–5 25–60 -- -- 25–60 -- -- 25–60 -- 10–30 3/8” -- -- 0–5 20–55 -- 20–55 10–40 -- 10–30 -- #4 -- 0–10 -- 0–10 0–10 0–10 0–4 0–10 0–5 0–5 #8 -- 0–5 -- 0–5 0–5 0–5 -- 0–5 -- -- 1 Aggregate shall be furnished in two size groups when the nominal max size is greater than 1 in. 2 Sizes 4 and 5 shall be a combination of two or more coarse aggregate sizes. Table 5. FAA and Idaho DOT aggregate gradation requirements. FINE AGGREGATE % Passing Sieve FAA ITD 3/8 in 100 100 #4 95–100 95–100 #8 80–100 -- #16 50–85 45–80 #30 25–60 -- #50 10–30 10–30 #100 2–10 2–10 #200 -- 0–23 3 The percent passing may be ≤ 3 if the sand equivalent is ≥ 80. Thus, for this comparison the Idaho DOT Section 409 specification meets the FAA Item 501 specifications in all critical requirements except for aggregate gradation. Although the Idaho DOT aggregate specification is slightly different from the FAA Item P-501 gradation, the differences are such that the Idaho DOT gradation could meet the FAA Item P-501 gradation and thus modification is an option. A contractor may choose to modify the Idaho DOT-specified aggregate gradation to meet the FAA P-501 specification; therefore, the Idaho DOT specified material is characterized as a Group 3. Alternatively, it is stated under FAA Item P-501: The Engineer shall specify the aggregate to be furnished from the table shown in this note. The appropriate gradation shall be inserted into Table 2. Insert points are denoted by asterisks. Where locally available aggregates cannot be economically blended to meet the grading requirements, the gradations may be modified by the Engineer to fit the characteristics of such locally available aggregates. ME-6