content up to 14.6%. Interestingly, data suggested that compaction at the wheel path was more consistent than other locations (nearly 1/10 of the variability observed at the lane and joint). This may have happened due to Maine DOT’s focus on wheel path compaction for QA/QC testing. Likely contractor practices evolved to produce high level wheel path compaction. However, the report suggests that future implementation of the DPS in Maine must include data from lane and joint as many studies have conclude that compaction in other parts of the pavement, especially at the longitudinal joint are essential for adequate pavement performance.
HWY 2 near Lincoln, Nebraska This survey was a training exercise in which the DPS measurement process and calibration with cores was demonstrated and explained to the Nebraska DOT. Compaction was considered satisfactory and mostly uniform for both areas in the center of the lane and at the joint. However, some points presented scarce areas of low dielectric constant indicating potential issues with compaction (Figure 32). Using DPS in active projects can help improve compaction these locations.
Figure 32: Joint survey [63]
48
