<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Underseals</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2703789</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Underseals, often referred to as Texas underseals because of their origin there, are being used in other regions, including Minnesota. However, their use has been limited and relatively undocumented. A few agencies in Minnesota, such as Hennepin County, City of Eden Prairie, and City of Lakeville, have implemented underseals on select projects.

The objective of this project was to survey Minnesota and neighboring state agencies - using Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MnDOT’s) National Road Research Alliance network to develop a database of bituminous underseal projects. The study aimed to synthesize information on usage, cost, timing, benefits, drawbacks, and performance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 15:44:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2703789</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Underseals</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2636119</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Underseals, often referred to as Texas underseals because of their origin there, are being used in other regions, including Minnesota. However, their use has been limited and relatively undocumented. A few agencies in Minnesota, such as Hennepin County, City of Eden Prairie, and City of Lakeville, have implemented underseals on select projects. The objective of this project was to survey Minnesota and neighboring state agencies - using MnDOT’s National Road Research Alliance network to develop a database of bituminous underseal projects. The study aimed to synthesize information on usage, cost, timing, benefits, drawbacks, and performance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 11:34:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2636119</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Development of Subgrade Stabilization and Slab Undersealing Solutions for PCC Pavements Restoration and Repairs</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1767057</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The loss of functionality and the development of distress in concrete pavements is often attributable to the poor subbase and subgrade conditions and/or loss of support due to the development of the voids underneath the slab. Subgrade soil stabilization can be used as an effective approach to restore the functionality of the subgrades in patching projects. This research had two main objectives: (1) identifying the best practices for soil stabilization of the existing subgrade during pavement patching operations and (2) identifying and developing new, modified grouting materials for slab stabilization and undersealing. Various stabilization scenarios were tested and showed improved performance of the subgrade layer. The use of geotextile along with aggregate course was found to significantly reduce the settlement. Non-removable flowable fill was also found to significantly reduce the subgrade settlement. Cement-treated aggregate and lean concrete provided the best performance, as they prevented formation of any noticeable settlement in the underlying subgrade.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:44:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1767057</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Comparative Analysis of Tack Coats, Spray Paver Membranes, and Underseals: Technical Report</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1570691</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Tack coats, trackless tack coats, spray paver underseal membranes, and underseals provide varying levels of bonding and sealing performance, but these benefits have not been sufficiently quantified, and neither has the overall impact on the asphalt overlay service life. This study 1) evaluated the performance of bonding and sealing treatments for bond strength, resistance to reflection cracking, and permeability, 2) estimated the life-cycle cost for each treatment, and 3) provided a reference guide for bonding and sealing treatments. Laboratory samples and field samples from 42 test sections on five overlay projects were tested for bond strength (Texas shear bond strength test), cracking resistance (modified Texas overlay test and compact tension test), and permeability (Florida falling head permeability test). All tests were sensitive to treatment type. Hot-applied trackless tack had the highest bond strength and spray paver membranes and underseals were the weakest, though all treatments demonstrated acceptable performance. Bond strengths varied significantly among the projects. Bonding was very sensitive to sample age with older samples having higher strength. Most of the bond strength is likely gained in the first month. The highest cracking resistance and also the lowest permeability was from high-residual treatments (underseal, spray paver membrane, and hot-applied trackless tack). The performance of an overlay over aged transversely cracked pavement was modeled. Higher bonding increased fatigue and rutting life. For reflection cracking, a partial bond resulted in longer service life. The spray paver membrane and underseal treatments had the longest service life and the spray paver membrane had the lowest life-cycle cost. For other scenarios, constrained by rutting or fatigue, a different treatment is likely to prove more cost-effective. A bonding and sealing treatment guide was developed with scenario recommendations for applying each treatment.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:09:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1570691</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reference Guide for Tack Coats, Spray Paver Membranes, and Underseals</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1570693</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The bond quality between pavement layers significantly impacts pavement life. Poor overlay bonding may lead to delamination, slippage cracking, and premature fatigue cracking, reflection cracking, and rutting. There are several options to prepare the surface prior to an asphalt overlay. Choosing the right treatment depends on the existing surface condition and the type of overlay construction. This document gives guidance on when each option may be used and some information on bond strength testing and performance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2018 17:03:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1570693</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Slab Stabilization</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1489912</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This Tech Brief summarizes a case study on slab stabilization in the lead State of Missouri. Best practice specifications and experience from Missouri, Georgia, contractors, and research studies are also included. Slab stabilization technology has improved over the years through better procedures and materials to provide a restoration of support of slabs that have experienced pumping and erosion leading to transverse joint and crack faulting, cracking, and roughness. Slab stabilization (also called undersealing and subsealing) is the pressure insertion of a highly flowable material beneath the slab or stabilized base to restore the support beneath transverse and longitudinal joints that has been eroded away. Erosion is caused by repeated heavy axle load deflections, poor joint load transfer efficiency (LTE), excess free water, and erodible materials in the base, subbase, and subgrade. Slab stabilization is not used to significantly raise the slab (this is called slab jacking) but primarily to restore support. This document is a brief technical summary of the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) case study Slab Stabilization Case Study for Missouri which is included in a larger report, Concrete Repair Best Practices: A Series of Case Studies, Publication no. cmr 17-013, November 2017.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2017 17:20:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1489912</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Constructability Review of Surface Treatments Constructed on Base Courses</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1376698</link>
      <description><![CDATA[It is common practice for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to construct surface treatments (1-, 2- or 3- course) directly over base courses. Such surface treatments may act as either wearing surfaces or underseals (or interlayers). The decision to use surface treatments is based on a number of factors including low life-cycle cost, low initial construction cost, inexpensive maintenance, historically favorable experience, availability of experienced contractors, and availability of sound local materials. Problems associated with surface treatments include flushing/bleeding in the wearing courses, debonding at the interface with the base layer, poor ride quality, loss of aggregate (raveling) and ineffective sealing of the pavement. When a surface treatment is used as an underseal, its failure may lead to accelerated failure of the overlying surface layer. Constructability issues related to surface treatments often dictate their performance. However, a formal statewide constructability review of surface treatments over base has not been conducted either by TxDOT or by other state highway agencies in the recent past. The objective of this research project was to conduct a comprehensive constructability review of surface treatment as practiced by TxDOT districts and to identify best practices. A comprehensive survey of existing surface treatment practices was conducted, both by interviewing highway professionals and by visiting construction projects. Information collected from the constructability review was used to develop a district training workshop and to develop a design and construction guide for surface treatments. The workshop was delivered by researchers at eight regional locations. This report highlights the key findings from the constructability review and its related tasks.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:55:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1376698</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Study on Quantitative Evaluation Method of Treatment Effectiveness on Cement Concrete Pavement Distress</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1110059</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In order to promote the technological element in decision-making of pavement maintenance management, a quantitative evaluation method for treatment effectiveness of maintenance activities on jointed concrete pavement was proposed through analyzing historic maintenance data in pavement maintenance management system. In order to verify the correctness of the method, the historic maintenance data of Xiangtan-Leiyang Expressway were analyzed to calculate the treatment effectiveness of void beneath pavement can be repaired by slab undersealing with different injected materials. After a series of statistical analysis, the treatment effectiveness of slab undersealing using cement grout was 75.8%, and the treatment effectiveness of slab undersealing using emulsified asphalt was 84.4%. According to this quantitative analyzing result, the current unit price of slab undersealing using emulsified asphalt grout is too high to popularize, its reasonable unit price is recommended as 21.4 yuan/m2.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:20:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1110059</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>URETEK Stitch-In-Time®</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/811686</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A section of portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement on Interstate 5 near Tacoma was the site of an experimental installation of the URETEK® Method of undersealing and the URETEK® Process called Stitch-In-Time for restoring load transfer to PCC pavements. After six years, the average load transfer efficiency of the 15 movable Stitch-In-Time joints, called accumulator joints, is 38%. In contrast, the average load transfer efficiency of the dowel bar retrofit joints installed at the same time is 82%. The URETEK undersealing method is doing an excellent job of supporting all of the panels in the experimental section. However, there is considerable cracking and spalling in the locked joints that are located between accumulator joints indicating areas of high stress concentration. The Stitch-In-Time Process is not recommended as a viable method to restore load transfer in PCC  pavements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:36:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/811686</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guidelines on the Use of Underseals as a Pavement Moisture Barrier</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/803216</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The placement of an asphalt seal coat under an asphalt concrete overlay has been used to provide an impervious membrane to stop the intrusion of surface or subsurface moisture. It is also specified to enhance the bond of subsequent applications on asphalt concrete pavement. However, underseals have contributed to premature cracking, rutting, stripping, and flushing or bleeding. The objective of this study was to develop the criteria needed to determine when and where to place an underseal. Researchers reviewed the literature, and surveyed and interviewed engineers in Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) districts to determine the current practice, experiences, and problems around the state regarding the use of underseals. Case studies of forensic investigations of pavements where underseals or lack of underseals have contributed to pavement failures are presented. A decision tree and criteria were developed and evaluated to determine when and where to place an underseal. Guidelines and training materials were developed on the use of underseals as a moisture barrier.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:00:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/803216</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Impact of Slab Curling on Backcalculation Analysis</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/780929</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing is performed on rigid pavements to assess the in-situ structural capacity of the pavement system, to evaluate the load transfer efficiency across transverse joints/cracks and to identify joints with high possibility of voids underneath the slabs.  Tests are performed at different times of the day (day and night), different seasons and different temperature conditions.  This data is used in the analysis to identify the network needs and prioritize these needs considering budget and performance constraints.  One key issue in this process is that FWD data collected under different environmental conditions is compared and decisions are made based on the comparison results.  Therefore, an effort should be made to minimize the impact of the difference in environmental conditions during FWD testing on the final analysis results.  Decisions, such as repair joints having low load transfer efficiency, underseal joints with voids, or repair slabs with low structural capacity, are made based on analysis of results of FWD testing that was performed under different temperature and moisture conditions.  A classic example of temperature impact on Maintenance & Rehabilitation (M&R) decision is corner curling, which may be identified mistakenly as potential void.  Undersealing the joint in this case may cause more harm to the slab.  Another classic example is the artificial high load transfer observed when FWD tests are performed at high ambient temperatures (>80ºF).  Therefore, it is essential to make sure that the difference in temperature and moisture conditions do not have a significant impact on the FWD analysis results to avoid making inaccurate decisions at the network and project levels.  This paper presents an effort to account for the impact of daily temperature variation on FWD analysis results for rigid pavements.  The work presented in this paper is a part of a large-scale research study sponsored by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) to study the seasonal variation in pavement properties and its impact on pavement response and performance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:12:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/780929</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Summary Report - 1993 Field Evaluations of SPS-3 and SPS-4 Test Sites</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/760111</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report summarizes findings of nationwide field evaluations of preventive maintenance treatment test sites constructed under the Strategic Highway Research Program's (SHRP) specific pavement studies SPS-3 and SPS-4.  The flexible pavement treatments (SPS-3) were crack sealing, chip seals, slurry seals, and thin hot mix overlays.  The treatments for rigid pavements (SPS-4) consisted of joint/crack sealing, and undersealing.  Studies were conducted to determine the effect of treatments on pavement service life, and to develop information on the optimum timing of the application of various treatments.  Field evaluations were conducted in 1993 by members of the Highway Operations Expert Task Group (ETG) as part of FHWA's SHRP implementation efforts.  In order to facilitate field evaluations the ETG was divided into four groups, each responsible for one SHRP region.  Regional reviews ranged from 7 to 10 days each.  A total of 87 test sites were reviewed nationwide.  Field observations indicate that pavement sections on which preventive maintenance treatments were applied have generally outperformed the sections that received no treatment.  In addition, it was noted that the treatments will be more effective if they are applied before significant deterioration has set in.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:00:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/760111</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Performance Report on Jointed Concrete Pavement Repair Strategies in Texas</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/751004</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Project 0-4517 was established to summarize the results from the Lufkin experiment on US 59 and to develop statewide guidelines on how to select rehabilitation strategies for jointed concrete pavements (JCPs).  This year 1 report reviews the performance of the six experimental sections on US 59 and makes recommendations for statewide implementation.  The best performing section in Lufkin was the flexible base overlay, which involved placing high-quality crushed limestone directly over the JCP followed by an underseal and thin asphalt overlay.  This was also one of the least expensive treatments used in the experiment.  The large stone mix also gave good performance, but the crack and seat and full-depth repair techniques did not perform well.  A forensic investigation was conducted to attempt to explain the variation in treatment performance.  To complement the Lufkin results, a review is also presented of the performance of other JCP rehabilitation techniques recently evaluated by Texas Department of Transportation districts.  An evaluation of crack retarding asphalt layers [Strata (Registered trademark)], grid layers [GlasGrid (Registered trademark)] and slab fracturing techniques is also included in the report.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2005 17:28:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/751004</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PERFORMANCE REPORT ON JOINTED CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPAIR STRATEGIES IN TEXAS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/755044</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Project 0-4517 was established to summarize the results from the Lufkin experiment on US 59 and to develop statewide guidelines on how to select rehabilitation strategies for jointed concrete pavement (JCP).  This year 1 report reviews the performance of the six experimental sections on US 59 and makes recommendations for statewide implementation.  The best performing section in Lufkin was the flexible base overlay, which involved placing high-quality crushed limestone directly over the JCP followed by an underseal and thin asphalt overlay.  This was also one of the least expensive treatments used in the experiment.  The large stone mix also gave good performance, but the crack and seat and full-depth repair techniques did not perform well.  A forensic investigation was conducted to attempt to explain the variation in treatment performance.  To complement the Lufkin results, a review is also presented of the performance of other JCP rehabilitation techniques recently evaluated by Texas Department of Transportation districts.  An evaluation of crack retarding asphalt layers [Strata (Registered Trademark)], grid layers [GlasGrid (Registered Trademark)] and slab fracturing techniques is also included in the report.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/755044</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPAIR MANUAL</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/697871</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This manual provides step-by-step procedures and describes methods for the maintenance and repair of concrete pavements. Principles detailed here apply to reinforced and non-reinforced pavements.  The objective of pavement repair is to be able to restore a pavement to its originally designed capacity.  Topics covered include: full-depth repair; partial-depth repair; slab jacking; subsealing; asphalt undersealing; diamond grinding; load transfer restoration; polymer concrete; retrofit edge drains, and heat-resistant concrete.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2004 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/697871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>