Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Investigation of airfield runways at Jacksonville Naval Air Station|
|Authors:||United States. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Southern Division.|
Ahlrich, Randy C.
Gyratory Testing Machine
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
|Publisher:||Geotechnical Laboratory (U.S.)|
Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)
|Series/Report no.:||Miscellaneous paper (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; GL-91-13.|
Abstract: In October 1990, the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) was requested by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southern Division, Charleston, South Carolina, to provide technical assistance in analyzing the airfield pavement distresses at Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida. Runways 9/27 and 14/32 had been rehabilitated and resurfaced with asphalt concrete in 1988. Within 1 year, significant amounts of loose fine aggregate appeared on the pavement surface. The asphalt concrete had begun to prematurely deteriorate and exhibit pavement surface distresses. The primary surface distresses were an open-textured surface, raveling, and the evidence of roots in the asphalt concrete. The Materials Research and Construction Technology branch of the Geotechnical Laboratory at WES was requested to inspect the airfield pavements and perform laboratory tests on asphalt concrete samples to determine properties of the asphalt cement, aggregates, and asphalt concrete mixture. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the in-place materials for compliance with specifications, determine possible causes for these pavement distresses, and recommend options for the repair of the airfield pavements. The laboratory evaluation of the asphalt concrete material indicated that pavement raveling was due to an improperly produced and constructed asphalt concrete mixture. Several factors that contributed to this improper asphalt mixture were: (A.) field density and compaction results were low and below minimum compaction requirements, (B.) aggregate gradations were consistently out of specification, (C.) natural sand contents were extremely high, (D.) inplace asphalt contents were extremely low, and (E.) void properties did not meet standard criteria for airfield pavements.
|Appears in Collections:||Documents|