What Are Those Things In The Road?

[gjl]

They are mainly on the interstates. They grind them out then fill them back in. Been driving me crazy for years wondering what they are for.They look like this in the lanes The groups of three are spaced a little further apart than the forum formatting allows.


||| |||

||| |||

||| |||

||| |||

||| |||

||| |||

[Bellaboo]

They place steel rods in them (the pavement cuts) to keep the pavement from shifting. They then will grind a thin layer off the top to smooth the road.

[Mel]

They put those in the highways to keep up our rep of bad roads.

[OKCisOK4me]

They put those in the highways to keep up our rep of bad roads.

Minus your sarcasm, Bellaboo pretty much hit the nail on the head...

[Bellaboo]

They put those in the highways to keep up our rep of bad roads.

The claim is that this type of reconditioning will extend the life of the road an extra 10 years before a full replacement.

[LakeEffect]

The claim is that this type of reconditioning will extend the life of the road an extra 10 years before a full replacement.

New concrete roads include these already. Over time, pavement shifts, and without the dowels, you'll notice that each joint has shifted, causing lifts/dips. The dowels are inserted so that this doesn't happen, and after insertion the joints are ground down so that the pavement is more smooth. It's not really about extending the life, it's more about road comfort. Of course, too much shifting will cause cracking and require full replacement earlier... so it's partially preventative maintenance as well.

[gjl]

So the rods are inserted vertically?

[LakeEffect]

So the rods are inserted vertically?

Horizontally.

[thebubble]

I heard ODOT does not like them installed initially. The thought is you build without the tie-ins initially and retrofit closer to end of life to get the most age out of the road for the money. I'm not sure I agree...

[ljbab728]

I heard ODOT does not like them installed initially. The thought is you build without the tie-ins initially and retrofit closer to end of life to get the most age out of the road for the money. I'm not sure I agree...

Why?

[Bill Robertson]

I heard ODOT does not like them installed initially. The thought is you build without the tie-ins initially and retrofit closer to end of life to get the most age out of the road for the money. I'm not sure I agree...

I can see both sides. Installing them initially is probably cheaper and doesn't require shutting lanes down later. On the other hand I can see the possibility of letting the road settle for a time before installing the tie-ins so there would be less stress on the joints and tie-ins.

[CaptDave]

On the other hand I can see the possibility of letting the road settle for a time before installing the tie-ins so there would be less stress on the joints and tie-ins.

That is what I thought - the subsequent surface grinding also smooths out the road rather well after a few years of settling. I often criticize ODOT for some of their actions, but this is one they deserve recognition and credit for. It does a very good job restoring the concrete surface and extends the life of the road at a much lower cost than resurfacing earlier than would be necessary without this procedure. I think the technique was pioneered in OK IIRC.

[Bellaboo]

If you've seen new construction now, they install rebar about 6 inches apart in the entire roadway. I don't think it would settle with this type of front end construction, it should not separate on cracks either, at least to the extent as pre rebar..... I'd have to go with the new way on this.


Go look at post #378 in thread - I-235 / I-44 Interchange