Advertisement

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 385–393 | Cite as

Testing development of different surface treatments on pervious concrete

  • Mina Yekkalar
  • Liv Haselbach
  • Quinn Langfitt
Research Article

Abstract

Pervious concrete systems are developing stormwater management technologies which also have wintertime benefits as melting snow may percolate into the system instead of refreezing on the surface. Enhancing the surface microtexture of pervious concrete may also be beneficial in preventing icing or slipping by pedestrians. This research explored different surface treatments on pervious concrete specimens both qualitatively from personal judgements, and quantitatively through static friction measurements with a spring balance with respect to “slipperiness”. The tests were performed on both dry and wet specimens. One aim was to determine whether the spring balance method may be a simple test for comparing surface treatments on pavement samples with little surface area such as laboratory specimens or sidewalk sections. The other purpose was to make a preliminary decision of which surface treatments to use for a sidewalk installation for future studies on wintertime performance. The reliability analysis of the spring balance results showed that there was high operator consistency. In addition, there was a high level of consistency on average results between the quantitative and qualitative methods. This implies that the spring balance test may be an acceptable methodology for comparative analyses with respect to static friction.

Keywords

pervious concrete static coefficient of friction pedestrian 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Valavala S, Montes F, Haselbach L. Area rated rational coefficient values for portland cement pervious concrete pavement. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 2006, 11(3): 257–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haselbach L, Poor C, Tilson J. Dissolved zinc and copper retention from stormwater runoff in ordinary portland cement pervious concrete. Construction & Building Materials, 2014, 53C: 652–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Montes F, Valavala S, Haselbach L. A new test method for porosity measurements of portland cement pervious concrete. Journal of ASTM International, 2005, 2(1): 13Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Litzka J. Austrian experiences with winter maintenance on porous asphalt. In: Proceedings Ninth International Conference on Asphalt Pavements. Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martinez F C, Poecker R A. Evaluation of deicer applications on open graded pavements. Oregon Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-OR-RD-06–12, 2006Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huber G. Performance Survey on Open-Graded Friction Course Mixes. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. National Academy Press, Synthesis of Highway Practice, 2000, 284Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kevern J, King G W, Bruetsch A. Pervious concrete surface characterization to reduce slip-related falls. American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2012, 26(4): 526–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ASTM. Standard Test Method for Skid Resistance of Paved Surfaces Using a Full-Scale Tire, ASTM E274. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ASTM. Standard Specification for Standard Rib Tire for Pavement Skid-Resistance Tests, ASTM E501. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luce A, Mahmoud E, Masad E, Chowdhury A. Relationship of aggregate microtexture to asphalt pavement skid resistance. ASTM International, 2007, 35(6): 578–588Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    USDOT. ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles. Appendix to Part 1192—Advisory Guidance. U S Department of Transportation. Published September 6, 1991 and amended September 28, 1998Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Santos PMD, Julio E N B S. A state-of-the-art review on roughness quantification methods for concrete surfaces. Construction and Building Materials, 2013, 38, 912–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haselbach L, Werner B. Pervious concrete performance in eastern Washington: surface infiltration. In: Proceedings ASCE Low Impact Development Conference. Houston Texas, January, 2015Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ASTM. Standard Test Method for Density and Void Content of Freshly Mixed Pervious Concrete, ASTM C1688. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ASTM. Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of In Place Pervious Concrete. ASTM C1701. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gao J, Luedtke W D, Gourdon D, Ruths M, Israelachvili J N, Landman U. Frictional forces and Amontons’ law: from the molecular to the macroscopic scale. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 2004, 108(11): 3410–3425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stemler S E. A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2004, 9(4): 1–19Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gwet K L. Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability: The Definitive Guide to Measuring the Extent of Agreement Among Raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC, Gaithersburg, MD, 2012Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988, 75–107zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gonzalez M, de Oliveira Lima A, Tighe S. Nanoconcrete for Rigid Pavements Abrasion Response and Impact on Friction. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2441, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, 2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil and Environmental EngineeringWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations