S. H.

Dahir 1

Relative Resistance of Rained-On Concrete Pavements to

Abrasion, Skidding, and Scaling

REFERENCE: Dahir, S. H., "Relative Resistance of Rained-On Con- FHWA Federal Highway Administration
crete Pavements to Abrasion, Skidding, and Scaling," Cement, Con- HR Heavy rain
crete, and Aggregates, CCAGDP, Vol. 3, No. 1, Summer 1981, pp. LR Legislative route
13-20.
MR Medium rain
ABSTRACT: Cores from concrete pavements that had been exposed to NB Northbound
rain while plastic and specimens prepared in the laboratory and ex- NR Not rained on (no rain)
posed to artificial rain showers were tested for abrasion, skid resis- PCC Portland cement concrete
tance, and scaling. Companion not-rained-on cores and laboratory PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
specimens were similarly tested. The results indicated that average skid
resistance measured with the British Pendulum Tester (BPT) was PSU Pennsylvania State University
similar on both rained-on and not-rained-on cores and specimens. Full- PTI Pennsylvania Transportation Institute
scale tire skid numbers were about 10% higher on not-rained-on un- RO Rained on
traveled pavement sections than on adjacent rained-on sections. Scal- SB Southbound
ing caused by freeze-thaw exposure and abrasion loss determined with Skid n u m b e r measured at 64 k m / h (40 mph)
SN4o
the U.S. Corps of Engineers Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete
or Mortar Surfaces to Abrasion (Procedure CRD-CS2-54) were con-
sistently higher on rained-on than on comparable not-rained-on cores Introduction
and specimens. Abrasion loss was higher on untraveled pavements than
on those that had been in use for several years. Also, abrasion loss was Normally, contractors will take precautions to protect newly
higher on specimens that had been exposed to heavier rain intensity,
placed portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements from being ex-
longer rain duration, and deeper texturing.
Comparison of abrasion loss, scaling caused by freeze-thaw ex- posed to rain before final set. However, there are occasions when
posure, and frictional BPT numbers on not-rained-on and rained-on rain may fall unexpectedly and the plastic concrete is subjected to
cores from untraveled pavements and on similarly prepared specimens the rain. Concern with the effects of rain on the properties of the
indicates that abrasion and British Pendulum Numbers can be prede- hardened concrete have at times led to controversy between owners
termined from specimens made and tested in the laboratory. Examina-
tion of two field sections after exposure to traffic and weathering for and contractors. The objective of the research reported here is to
two years confirmed the validity of laboratory testing predictions. Two investigate the effects of rain on the resistance to abrasion, skid-
abrasion machines made to the specifications of the U.S. Corps of En- ding, and scaling of the rained-on concrete.
gineers Procedure CRD-CS2-S4 gave two different levels of abrasion
loss on paired specimens, but the resulting trends were similar.
Background Information
KEYWORDS: concretes, concrete pavements, abrasion resistance,
skid resistance, rained on, freeze-thaw, scaling Several highway engineers and concrete experts were asked
about their experience and views on the effects of rain on plastic
concrete pavements. Also, a thorough search of the available liter-
Nomenclature ature on this subject was conducted. Expert opinions on the sub-
ject varied, but there appeared to be a general consensus that light
ACPA American Concrete Paving Association
rain did not detrimentally affect the plastic concrete whereas heavy
BMTR Bureau of Materials, Testing and Research
rain could. The extent of the effect would depend on the condition
BPN British Pendulum Number
of the concrete when rained on and the intensity and duration of
BPT British Pendulum Tester
the rain. Quantitative data were scarce or not available. It was pos-
C Cement
sible to obtain limited data from only two sources: the U.S. Army
CA Coarse aggregate
Corps of Engineers concrete laboratory 2 and a publication by the
EB Eastbound
American Concrete Paving Association (ACPA) [1].
FA Fine aggregate
Some abrasion tests were made at the Corps of Engineers con-
crete laboratory 2 on pavement cores submitted in 1973 by the high-
lPresently, Visiting Fulbright professor, University of Jordan, Faculty of
Engineering and Technology, Amman, Jordan; permanently, professor of
civil engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, Capitol Campus, 2Mather, B., Private communication, Concrete Laboratory, Department
Suite W 261, Middletown, Pa. 17057. Member of ASTM. of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 1978.

© 1981 by the American Society for Testing and Materials 0149-6123/81/0008-0013500.40

13

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Apr 10 09:07:47 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (Universitat Politecnica de Valencia) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
14 CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND AGGREGATES

way departments in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Tests on the cores

from Pennsylvania showed no significant difference in the resis-
tance to abrasion between rained-on and companion not-rained-on
concrete. Results of tests on the cores from Georgia were in-
conclusive.
The ACPA report [1] includes skid resistance measurements
made on rained-on and companion not-rained-on pavements that
had been in use for several years in Indiana. The data show varia-
tions in skid numbers. However, it was concluded from these mea-
surements that there was no significant difference between skid re-
sistance on rained-on and not-rained-on concrete pavements. No
data were reported on abrasion or scaling.

Research Approach
The research reported here involved laboratory testing for skid
resistance, abrasion resistance, and resistance to freezing and
thawing of concrete cores from rained-on and adjacent not-rained-
on pavement sections and of concrete blocks prepared in the labo-
ratory and subjected to simulated rain showers. Skid resistance
was measured in the laboratory with the British Pendulum Tester
(BPT), ASTM Method for Measuring Surface Frictional Proper-
ties Using the British Pendulum Tester (E 303). Resistance to
freezing and thawing was determined with the ASTM Test for Re-
sistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing (C 666), Pro- FIG. l--General view of the abrasion machine.
cedure B.
In the field, limited tests were conducted with the BPT and the
full-scale tire, ASTM Test for Skid Resistance of Paved Surfaces
Using a Full-Scale Tire (E 274). Also, surface texture was
measured with the ACPA Sand Patch method [2]. The abrasion
resistance of pavement cores and laboratory prepared specimens
was evaluated in the laboratory with the U.S. Corps of Engineers
Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete or Mortar Surfaces to
Abrasion (Procedure CRD-C52-54). This procedure uses a drill-
press with an abrading cutter in which 24 grinding wheel dressers
are mounted (Fig. 1). The abrading cutter (Fig. 2) rotates on the
test specimen surface at a speed of approximately 200 rpm while
exerting a constant pressure of 4400 g. The specimen is weighed to
the nearest 0. i g before and after abrading, and the average weight
loss is reported in grams per square centimetre (g/cm 2) of abraded
area. The standard procedure calls for a 2-min abrasion time. In
this research, abrasion was measured at 2, S, and 10 rain, cumu-
FIG. 2--The abrading cutter of the abrasion machine.
latively.

into 150- by 150- by 75-mm (6- by 6- by 3-in.) specimens. Three

Test Specimens
Pavement cores, 150 mm (6 in.) in diameter, were obtained by
the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) from
rained-on and adjacent not-rained-on pavement sections. The
cores were from four different counties. At least two, but generally
more than two cores were obtained from each rained-on and each
adjacent not-rained-on section. Artificially rained-on and compan-
ion not-rained-on 150-mm (6-in.) square specimens were prepared
in the laboratory at the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute
(PTI) at the Pennsylvania State University (PSU). Ingredients of
the concrete were selected from those used in pavements in Centre
County, Pa. and the mix design was similar to that generally used
by PennDOT for concrete pavements [3]. Mix design, ingredients,
and concrete properties are summarized in Table 1.
The laboratory specimens were prepared in 300- by 300- by
75-mm (12- by 12- by 3-in.) blocks which, after curing, were cut
blocks (twelve specimens) were made from the same batch. After
placing the concrete in the forms, the blocks were allowed to dry
partially for 75 vain, then they were textured and coated gently
with two applications of a curing compound. The texturing was
achieved with one pass of a nylon-tined brush except that one set of
three blocks was textured with two passes of burlap drag. After
coating with the curing compound for 15 min, two blocks were
placed under a water shower (Fig. 3). One block was exposed to a
shower estimated to simulate rain of medium intensity and the
other block was exposed to a simulated heavy rain. Periods of ex-
posure to the shower were varied at 30 and 60 rain. After exposure
to the shower (Fig. 4), the blocks were allowed to dry for 6 to 12 h,
then they were recoated with the curing compound and left to cure
for a period of six to eight weeks. After curing, each block was cut
into four approximately equidimensional test specimens. The
blocks were serially numbered one through thirty and the spec-

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Apr 10 09:07:47 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (Universitat Politecnica de Valencia) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 DAHIR ON RAINED-ON CONCRETE PAVEMENTS 15

TABLE 1--1ngredients, design and properties of laboratory prepared

concrete specimens [3]. a

Cement: Medusa, Type I

Coarse aggregate: Limestone from Neidigh Bros. Limestone Co.,
Centre County, Pa.
Gradation: PennDOT #1B (75 to 100% passing
9.5-mm [3/8-in.] sieve)
Specific gravity: 2.68
Water absorption: 0.26%
Fine aggregate: river sand from Montoursville, Pa.
Specific gravity: 2.61
Fineness modulus: 2.69
Water absorption: 1.5%
Concrete: FIG. 4--Concrete block after exposure to shower.
Mix proportion: C:FA:CA--l:l.66:2.02
Water/Cement ratio
by weight: 0.47 the shower. Shower intensity was controlled within reasonable
Air content: 5 to 6% bounds with a mounted gauge (Fig. 3). As a result of these simple
Slump: 45 ___ 6 mm (1.75 + 0.25 in.)
2350 kg/m 3 (147 lb/ft 3) procedures, it was concluded that the simulated medium rain
Unit weight:
COmpressive strength: 30 000 kPa (4400 psi) after 28 days of curing shower was in fact on the same order as an average heavy natural
rain having an intensity of about 50 m m / h (2 in./h).
aAll specimens were cured six to eight weeks before testing for abrasion
and skid resistance. (Pennsylvania pavement cores obtained for testing had Testing Results and Interpretation
similar ingredients and design Class AA concrete) except that the coarse
aggregate gradation was coarser (PennDOT #2B gradation) and com- Skid Resistance
pressive strength was higher, approximately 41 000 ___ 6 800 kPa (6000 ___
1000 psi)depending on pavement age. Skid resistance measurements made in the laboratory and in the
field are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Also, sand patch texture
imens from each block were also numbered one through four, depth measurements are shown in Table 3. The results generally
counterclockwise. The specimens bearing Numbers 1 and 3 (for ex- indicate that when the BPT ( A S T M Method E 303) is used, no sig-
ample, 17-1 and 17-3) were tested for abrasion at P e n n D O T ' s nificant difference in skid resistance appears to exist between
Bureau of Materials, Testing and Research (BMTR). The spec- rained-on and companion not-rained-on concrete. However, when
imens bearing Numbers 2 and 4 (for example, 17-2 and 17-4) were skid number SNa0 is measured on newly constructed (practically
tested at PSU. All specimens were tested for resistance to freezing untraveled) pavements, not-rained-on concrete surfaces show 10 to
and thawing at P e n n D O T ' s B M T R . 12% higher skid numbers--SN40 = 67 to 68 as compared to SN40
W h e n the blocks were removed from under the shower, a con- = 62 on adjacent rained-on surfaces. The difference may be due to
tainer having the same dimensions as the blocks was placed in the the greater texture depth of the not-rained-on sections (see Table
spots where the blocks had been and the collected water was 3). It is not certain whether this difference is significant because of
measured. The same container was also used to collect natural rain the limited n u m b e r of sections that were tested (two rained-on and
water at various intensities to compare with the flow of water from two not-rained-on sections).

FIG. 3--General view of concrete blocks under the shower.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Apr 10 09:07:47 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (Universitat Politecnica de Valencia) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
16 CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND AGGREGATES

TABLE 2--Summary of skid resistance measurements in the laboratory. min of abrasion. Figure 5 shows abrasion results on three compan-
ion specimens exposed to simulated heavy rain, medium rain, and
BPN a no rain. A f t e r about 10 rain of abrasion time, the trend of abrasion
NR HR MR appeared not to vary with increasing abrasion time, and much of
the coarse aggregate became exposed (Fig. 6). Therefore, abrasion
LAB SET tests were carried out for periods of 2, 5 and 10 min only. Abrasion
1,2,3 90 98 88 loss was higher on rained-on than on not-rained-on specimens.
13, 14, 1S 97 88 88 Also, higher abrasion loss accompanied heavier rain.
16, 17, 18 99 80 95 Abrasion machines at B M T R and lrI'I were ordered btiilt to the
19,20, 21 98 92 98
22,23,24 86 94 90 specifications of the U.S. Corps of Engineers Procedure CRD-
28,29, 30 90 88 86 C52-54 from two different vendors. However, abrasion results ob-
PAVEMENT CORES
tained at B M T R were consistently lower than those obtained at
PTI. Averages of all test results at each of the two laboratories are
LR 1050 NB 96 .. 95
96 shown in Fig. 7. Obviously, machine or operator differences or
(Centre County, Pa.) 95 ..
LR 1044 NB 83 .. 83 both are significant. It is believed that the differences are largely a
(Clinton County, Pa.) 79 .. 84 result of some difference in the machines, as mentioned earlier.
LR 1044 SB 86 .. 83 However, it is important to note that both machines showed similar
(Clinton County, Pa.) 85 ,. 82 abrasion trends and similar abrasion loss differences between
LR 1049 (EB ramp) 73 .. 79
(Centre County, Pa.) 69 ... 78 rained-on and not-rained-on specimens tested by both machines.
LR 1009 (SW ramp) 8~ ... 84 In practically all cases, rained-on specimens had higher abrasion
(Union County, Pa.) 87 ... 85 loss than not-rained-on specimens and heavy rain caused higher
LR 21 (SW ramp) 75 ,,, 78 abrasion loss than medium rain. However, the magnitude of abra-
(Tioga County, Pa.) 8~ ,,. 78
sion loss and difference in loss between conditions of no rain, me-
aBPN was measured along grooves according to ASTM Method E 303. dium rain, and heavy rain varied from one set of specimens to
another. Curves showing average abrasion loss of all the lab-made
specimens at the two laboratories are shown in Fig. 8.
Abrasion Resistance
To determine whether the duration of rain affected rained-on
There are several factors that appear to contribute to variations concrete, exposure of the specimens to the simulated rain was
in the abrasion resistance of concrete surfaces, even when the con- varied at 30 and 60 min. Abrasion results show that specimens ex-
crete is made from the same ingredients and mix design. Some fac-
tors appear to be related to differences between abrasion machines 20'
and procedures. These merit separate investigation. However,
most factors are related to the concrete surfaces themselves. These
factors include whether the concrete was rained-on, the intensity
and duration of the rain, the method of surface texturing, and
whether the concrete had been exposed to polishing by traffic.
o=
Abrasion Results I0'

0 NR ( I - 4 )
Abrasion was performed for 2, 5, and 10 rain, total time, at 200 z ~.MR (3-4)
0
rpm. Initially and after each abrasion period, the specimen was oHR(2-4)
cleaned gently with a soft brush and weighed to determine weight
loss caused by abrasion. The abraded area was measured for the
purpose of using it as a basis for unit loss in grams per square cen-
timetre. Generally, the abraded area remained approximately con-
stant, except when something went wrong with the machine opera-
ABRASION TIME, minutes
tion.
On two sets of specimens, tests were carried out for a total of 15 FIG. S--Concrete abrasion loss after 2, 5, 10, and 15 min total time.

TABLE 3--Summary of skid resistance measurements in the field ¢LR 1050--two sections).

Mean Texture Depth c,

BPNa SN40b 0.001 in.

Lab Set NR RO NR RO NR RO

1, 2, 3 91 89 67 62 24 16
13, 14, 15 87 to93 82to 94 63to72 57 to66 23 to25 14 to 19
16, 17, 18 . . . . . . 68 62 34 23
19, 20, 21 . . . . . . 63 to74 58 to 68 27to49 22 to23
aAverage of eight measurements from 5/24/78 to 7/24/78.
bAverage of twelve measurements from 5/24/78 to 7/24/78.
CAverage of six measurements with 1 in. = 25 mm.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Apr 10 09:07:47 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (Universitat Politecnica de Valencia) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 DAHIR ON RAINED-ON CONCRETE PAVEMENTS 17

---o--NR, PSU Lob Specm~ens

--¢~-NR, PDT Lob Spec~ns
MR, PSU Lob Specimens
--O--MR, PDT Lob Specimens
- - o - - HR, PSU Lob Specimens
--O--HR, PDT Lob Specimens

20"

I0.

~D

ABRASION TIME, minutes

FIG. 7--Comparison of abrasion by two similar machines.

20
ONR
~MR

°"" f

IO
z
o

ri-
m

All Lob Specimens

(PSU ~ PDT)

0
o ~ ~
ABRASION TIME, minutes

FIG. 8--Average abrasion loss on all laboratory made concrete

specimens tested by two machines.

FIG. 6--Concrete specimen abraded for 2 min (top), 5 min (middle),

and 10 rain (bottom).
posed to showers for 60 min had a higher average abrasion loss
than those exposed to showers for 30 rain (Fig. 9). It may he that
more erosion of the mortar, particularly the cement portion, oc-
curred during the longer period of water falling and flowing over
the concrete surface, causing the surface to become less resistant to
abrasion.
The laboratory specimens (except one set) were textured with
one pass of a brush made of nylon tines, similar to those often used
in texturing pavement surfaces. One set (twelve test specimens)
was textured with two passes of a burlap drag. The results are
shown in Fig. 10. The brush-textured specimens had higher aver-
age abrasion loss than the burlap-textured specimens. The result
was rather surprising in view of the belief by some highway
engineers that tine-textured surfaces are more resistant to wear
than burlap-textured surfaces. It may be that in the research re-
ported here deeper texturing with the brush weakened the bond
between the sand particles in the mortar, causing more of them to
separate than in specimens less deeply textured with the burlap
drag.
In view of differences in the level of abrasion loss obtained with
the two abrasion machines, pavement cores obtained from rained-
on and adjacent not-rained-on pavement sections were all tested at
PTI with the same machine and operator. Abrasion testing results
are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. It can be seen from these figures that
in all cases except one, rained-on cores had higher abrasion loss
than not-rained-on cores from the same pavement. The only excep-

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Apr 10 09:07:47 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (Universitat Politecnica de Valencia) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
18 CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND AGGREGATES

---C NR, LR21 Pavement Cores

~ R O , LR2! Po,amlent Cores
- - o - - - N R , LR|O09 Povement Cores
--O----RO, L.RIO09 Povement Cores
,,,,-~-~NR, LRI050 Po,,trnent Cores
20 taRO, LRI050 Povement Cotes

¢~ s S /'~_/
3 ./" 1.v

o
10- o¢
03 /v/1.1.1"
~ MR, 50 Minute Roin ~ I0
-"~'- HR, 60 Minute Roin O~
-.o.- HR, ~50 Minute Roin tic
fib
-'~'- MR, 60 Minute Roin

q 2 'g b
ABRASION TIME, minutes

FIG. 9--Abrasion loss on concrete specimens exposed to showers for 30 ABRASION TIME, minutes
and 60 rain.
FIG. tl--Abrasion on pavement cores from L R 21, L R 1009, and L R
1050.

20 NR, L R I 0 4 4 S B
---o--- RO, L R I 0 4 4 S8
•-.o.-- NR, L R I 0 4 4 NB
•..o---RO, L R I 0 4 4 NB
- - e - - NR, LR 1049
- " ~ - - RO, LRI049
-o~>-- NR, L R I 0 5 0
---0-- RO, LRI050

20
SS'/ _,w.~..,B ' ' ~ ~

~.~. ~'"~

m
< C~¢'~" ~ NR, Nylon Brush
--o.-NR, Burlap Drog
~ .¢f..~. ~ . ~
--O'-MR, Burlclp Drog
--,o-- MR, Nylon Brush
--0,-HR,
- - 0 - - HR,
Burlop Drog
Nylon Brush
:. 10 ~,~;,~."
06 ~ ~
........................... _o ~' ~
ABRASION TIMId, minutes in
FIG. lO--Abrasion on concrete textured with a nylon brush and con-
crete textured with a burlap drag.

tion occurred in the case of Legislative Route (LR) 1044 Northbound

(NB) (Fig. 12) where the rained-on-concrete had significantly
higher compressive strength than the not-rained-on c o n c r e t e -
42 000 versus 33 000 kPa (6200 versus 4900 psi). The difference in
abrasion loss between rained-on and not-rained-on concrete varied
from small and insignificant, as may be seen from the tests on the
cores from LR 1049 (Fig. 12) to fairly large and what appears to be
higher compressive strength than the not-rained-on c o n c r e t e -
42 000 versus 33 000 kPa (6200 versus 4900 psi). The difference in
County, and LR 1050 in Centre County (Figs. 11 and 12). Also, the
difference in abrasion loss between rained-on and companion not-
rained-on cores from each of the three pavements increased as
abrasion time increased, as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. The largest
difference occurred when the cores were abraded for a total of 10
rain. It is not clear at this point whether the longer abrasion time
ABRASION TIME, minutes
FIG. 12--Abrasion on pavement cores from LR 1044, L R 1049, and LR
1050.
brought out real differences in mortar abrasion resistance, or
whether the differences in the abrasion resistance of the coarse ag-
gregate caused the larger difference. However, the trends re-
mained consistent and in agreement with those obtained from the
abrasion of laboratory specimens made with the same materials
and mixture design.
One observation should be made about the level of abrasion loss
of the cores. It can be seen from Figs. 11 and 12 that the cores from
LR 1050 in Centre County had a significantly higher level of abra-

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Apr 10 09:07:47 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (Universitat Politecnica de Valencia) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 DAHIR ON RAINED-ON CONCRETE PAVEMENTS 19

sion loss than tne cores from all other pavements--LR 21, LR .-,-,o,~.NR, PSUI,,ob ~ecirh~ns
1009, LR 1044, and LR 1049. The cores from LR 1050 were ob- --O--MR, PSU Lob S p e c i m e n s
--o--RO, LRI050 Cores
tained while the pavement was new and had no significant traffic 20, -,o.-NR, LRI050 Cores
passing over it. The other four pavements were older, and pre-
sumably much traffic had passed over them. It is reasoned that
high texture asperities on the new pavement of LR 1050 were more
susceptible to loss of asperity tips and possibly loosely bonded mor-
tar sand particles than the relatively polished surfaces of the other
pavements were. This fact may have caused the significant differ-
¢)
ence in the level of abrasion loss between the new and the older 9
well-traveled pavements. However, there was also a significant dif- I0,
Z
_o
ference in abrasion loss between the four older well-traveled pave- ¢)
ments. The reason for this difference has not been determined. A n-
~O
larger number of older well-traveled pavements of known con-
struction and traffic history need to be sampled and tested to find
the causes of this difference in abrasion resistance. It is possible
that differences in concrete age, strength, environment, and traffic
(level of wear) contributed to the differences in the degree of
resistance to abrasion. 6 t6
ABRASION TIME, minutes
Average abrasion loss on all cores and all laboratory specimens
was compared using simulated medium rain for the laboratory FIG. 14--Comparison of abrasion on new concrete pavement cores and
specimens (Fig. 13). The comparison indicated that trends in abra- on laboratory made specimens.
sion loss in both cores and laboratory specimens were approx-
imately the same. However, the level of abrasion loss was pavement. However, as previously stated, more sampling and
significantly higher in the laboratory specimens than in the pave- testing are needed to determine whether the same differences be-
ment cores. This result was attributed to the lack of similarity of tween the abrasion resistance of rained-on and not-rained-on con-
exposure between the laboratory specimens and most of the cores. crete remain after the pavement has been in service under con-
The surfaces of most of the cores had been worn down by traffic, siderable traffic for several years.
whereas the laboratory specimens had not undergone any
polishing. Therefore, it was thought to be more meaningful to
compare the abrasion toss on the cores from the new untraveled Resistance to Freezing and Thawing
pavement only (LR 1050) with the abrasion loss on the unpolished All the laboratory prepared specimens and some sample cores
laboratory specimens. The comparison is shown in Fig. 14. It can were tested for resistance to rapidly repeated cycles of freezing and
be seen that the new pavement and the laboratory prepared con- thawing in the laboratory with ASTM Test C 666, Procedure B.
crete were abraded similarly and approximately to the same level. The specimens were subjected to 300 cycles of freezing and thaw-
It may be concluded from Fig. 14 that the modified U.S. Corps of ing, unless they disintegrated before the 300 cycles were com-
Engineers abrasion procedure can predict the abrasion resistance pleted. Few specimens disintegrated; the majority survived the
of a newly constructed rained-on pavement surface from tests on test.
laboratory prepared specimens made with the same design and On completion of the 300-cycle test, the specimen surfaces were
materials and subjected to similar rain conditions as those of the inspected visually and compared to determine the relative detri-
mental effects. In most cases, rained-on concrete had undergone
20 ¸
more pronounced surface scaling than not-rained-on concrete. In
- - O - - NR, All Cores some cases, the mortar was almost completely worn down, and the
RO, All Cores coarse aggregate was exposed. Photographs of some rained-on and
- . o . - N R , All Lab Specimens
-,~--MR, All Lab Specimens companion not-rained-on specimens are shown in Fig. 15.

3 Field Performance Confirms Predictions

Cores from two sites on the State College Pennsylvania Bypass,

q ,o LR 1050, were obtained and tested in July 1978. Abrasion test re-
z
Q sults are shown in Fig. 14. These results show that significantly
higher abrasion loss was measured on the rained-on cores. Simi-
larly, severe surface scaling occured on the rained-on cores when
they were subjected to 300 cycles of freezing and thawing, whereas
little or no scaling occured on the not-rained-on specimens, as is
shown in Fig. 15. These results implied that rained-on concrete
may be expected to have significantly less resistance to abrasion
and weather-induced wear than not-rained-on concrete.
ABRASION TIME, minutes
A visit to the same sites on LR 1050 in July 1980 has confirmed
FIG. 13--Compar~on of average abrasion on all pavement cores and on that the earlier predictions were valid. Figure t6 illustrates the ef-
all laboratory specimens. fects of abrasion and weathering on the rained-on section in con-

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Apr 10 09:07:47 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (Universitat Politecnica de Valencia) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
20 CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND AGGREGATES
FIG. 15--Effects of freeze-thaw tests (ASTM Test C 666) on rained-on
and not-rained-on concrete specimens.
FIG. t6--LR 1050 in 1980--not rained on (left) and rained on (right).
trast to the not-rained-on adjacent concrete. Where scaling was
not severe, skid resistance measured with the BPT was found to be
similar on both rained-on and not-rained-on concrete. However,
where the limestone coarse aggregate was almost completely ex-
posed on the rained-on section because of severe scaling (as in Fig.
16), skid resistance was much lower (about 20 British Pendulum
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Apr 10 09:07:47 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (Universitat Politecnica de Valencia) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
Number [BPN] lower) on this section than it was on the adjacent
not-rained-on concrete which did not experience any visually
noticeable scaling.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The following conclusions are supported by the research reported
here:
1. The friction number measured with the BPT (ASTM Method
E 303) is practically the same on rained-on and companion not-
rained-on surfaces, provided that no visible damage had been
caused by the rain. However, skid resistance measured with a full-
scale tire (ASTM Test E 274) is about 10% higher on not-rained-on
surfaces.
2. The volume of lost material in the abrasion test depends on
the intensity and duration of the rain to which the fresh concrete
had been exposed, on the method of surface texturing, and on how
much abrasion to the hardened concrete surface had already taken
place under traffic by the time core test specimens were obtained.
3. The U.S. Corps of Engineers Procedure CRD-C52-54 appears
to distinguish between the abrasion resistance of rained-on and not-
rained-on concrete surfaces. However, a modified procedure that
will use more than the standard 2-rain abrasion time is needed to
identify clearly differences in abrasion resistance.
4. Different machines or operators or both abrade similar con-
crete specimens to different levels of abrasion loss, but abrasion
trends and differences remain similar. Modifications need to be
made to the machine and to the procedure.
5. Further research is needed to determine whether the volume
of lost material in the abrasion test is different for rained-on and
not-rained-on surfaces when the test is performed on pavement
surfaces that have undergone extensive abrasion by traffic by the
time core test specimens were obtained.
Acknowledgments
The research reported here was sponsored by the Federal High-
way Administration (FHWA), contract manager, Edwin Granley.
R. H. Howe of PennDOT helped in procuring the pavement cores
and in programming tests made at PennDOT. He also made valu-
able suggestions during the research. Bryant Mather, Chief, U.S.
Corps of Engineers Concrete Laboratory at Vicksburg, Miss. pro-
vided helpful information and suggestions on the abrasion pro-
cedure. Professor J. J. Henry and several students and staff at PSU
assisted in the conduct of the research. Other personnel at Penn-
DOT and FHWA, and the Deanship of Research and Higher
Studies at the University of Jordan assisted in the verification of
the results and in making the preparation of this paper possible.
References
[1] "Concrete Pavements Exposed to Rain During Construction," Tech-
nical Bulletin 17, American Concrete Paving Association, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1974.
[2] "Interim Recommendations for the Construction of Skid-Resistant
Concrete Pavement," Technical Bulletin 6, American Concrete Paving
Association, Washington, D.C., 1969.
[3] Form 408-Specifications, Pennsylvania Department of Transporta-
tion, Harrisburg, Pa., 1976, pp. 309-340.