Technical Report Documentation Page - ?· Technical Report Documentation Page 1. ... Rehabilitation…

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • Technical Report Documentation Page

    1. REPORT No. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION No. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG No.

    Investigation of Design and Construction Issues for Long LifeConcrete Pavement Strategies

    4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

    April 19995. REPORT DATE

    6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

    Jeffery R. Roesler, John T. Harvey, Jennifer Farver, FenellaLong

    7. AUTHOR(S)8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT No.

    Pavement Research CenterInstitute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of California at Berkeley

    9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT No.

    11. CONTRACT OR GRANT No.

    12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS13. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

    14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

    15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

    In recent years, Caltrans engineers and policy makers have felt that existing methods of rigid pavement maintenance andrehabilitation may not be optimum for a benefit/cost or life cycle cost standpoint. Caltrans is also becoming more concerned aboutincreasingly severe traffic management problems. The agency costs of applying lane closures in urban areas is very largecompared to the actual costs of materials and placement, and increased need for maintenance forces to be in the roadway isincreasing costs and safety risks. In addition, the costs to Caltrans' clients, the pavements users, are increasing due to theincreasing frequency of lane closures, which cause delays, and the additional vehicle operating costs from deteriorating ride quality.

    A need was identified to develop lane replacement strategies that will not require the long-term closures associated with the useof ordinary Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) and will provide longer lives than the current assumed design life of 20 years for PCCpavements. Caltrans has developed strategies for rehabilitation of concrete pavements intended to meet the following objectives:

    1. Provide 30+ years of service life,2. Require minimal maintenance, although zero maintenance is not a stated objective,

    1. Have sufficient production to rehabilitate or reconstruct about 6 lane-kilometers within a construction window of 67 hours (10 a.m.Friday to 5 a.m. Monday).

    16. ABSTRACT

    17. KEYWORDS

    7318. No. OF PAGES:

    http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/research/researchreports/1997-2001/construction.pdf19. DRI WEBSITE LINK

    This page was created to provide searchable keywords and abstract text for older scanned research reports.November 2005, Division of Research and Innovation

    construction.pdf20. FILE NAME

  • Investigation of Design and Construction Issues for Long Life

    Concrete Pavement Strategies

    Report Prepared for

    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    By

    Jeffery R. Roesler, John T. Harvey, Jennifer Farver, Fenella Long

    April 1999Pavement Research Center

    Institute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of California at Berkeley

  • i

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................iii

    LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................vii

    LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................... ix

    1.0 Background of LLPRS ........................................................................................................1

    2.0 Objectives ...........................................................................................................................3

    2.1 LLPRS Objectives...........................................................................................................3

    2.2 Contract Team Research Objectives ................................................................................4

    2.3 Report Objectives ............................................................................................................5

    3.0 Limitations of Existing Pavement Design Methodologies ....................................................7

    3.1 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)..........7

    3.2 Portland Cement Association (PCA)................................................................................8

    3.3 Overview of Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Procedure....................................8

    3.3.1 Tools for Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design................................................10

    3.3.2 Limitations of existing mechanistic designs ...........................................................13

    4.0 Comparison of Several Load Equivalency Factors and AASHTO ESALs in Rigid Pavement

    Design ......................................................................................................................................15

    4.1 Mechanistic-Based Load Equivalency Factors...............................................................17

  • ii

    5.0 Longitudinal Cracking Analysis ........................................................................................27

    5.1 Longitudinal Crack Finite Element Analysis..................................................................30

    5.1.1 Finite Element Analysis Mesh ...............................................................................31

    5.1.2 Finite Element Analysis Loading ...........................................................................33

    5.1.3 FEA Results...........................................................................................................34

    6.0 CONCRETE PAVEMENT OPENING TIME TO TRAFFIC ............................................39

    7.0 CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTIVITY ISSUES.................................................................45

    7.1 Batch Plant....................................................................................................................45

    7.2 Concrete Paver ..............................................................................................................46

    7.3 Concrete Supply Trucks ................................................................................................47

    7.4 Construction Materials Limitations................................................................................48

    7.4.1 Dowels ..................................................................................................................48

    7.4.2 Existing Pavement Structure ..................................................................................49

    7.4.3 Type of Paving Material ........................................................................................49

    7.5 Other Productivity Issues...............................................................................................50

    7.6 Sensitivity of Productivity to Concrete Opening Strength Specification.........................50

    8.0 OTHER State DOT USE OF HIGH EARLY STRENGTH CONCRETE ..........................53

    9.0 SUMMARY......................................................................................................................55

  • iii

    10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................59

    11.0 REFERENCEs ..............................................................................................................61

  • iv

  • v

    LIST OF FIGURES

    Figure 1. Flow Chart for a Mechanistic Empirical Design Procedure. [from Reference (15)]....10

    Figure 2. Relationship Between Fatigue Damage and Percent Slabs Cracked. [from Reference

    (15)]..................................................................................................................................12

    Figure 3a. Incompressible Debris Filling Half the Joint. ...........................................................32

    Figure 3b. Incompressible Debris Filling One Quarter of the Joint. ..........................................32

    Figure 3c. Incompressible Debris in the Joint in the Wheelpaths. .............................................32

    Figure 4. Finite Element Analysis Half-Slab Model Showing the Geometry and Boundary

    Conditions.........................................................................................................................33

    Figure 5. Principal Stress Results from Finite Element Analysis Loading of Half Filled Joint

    Case. .................................................................................................................................35

    Figure 6. Principal Stress Results from Finite Element Analysis Loading of Quarter Filled Joint

    Case. .................................................................................................................................36

    Figure 7. Principal Stress Results from Finite Element Analysis Loading of Joint Filled in the

    Wheelpath Case.................................................................................................................37

  • vi

  • vii

    LIST OF TABLES

    Table 1 Comparison of Caltrans and AASHTO Load Equivalency Factors (LEFs) for Single

    Axle Loads........................................................................................................................16

    Table 2 Comparison of Caltrans and AASHTO Load Equivalency Factors (LEFs) for Tandem

    Axle Loads........................................................................................................................16

    Table 3 Comparison of Caltrans and AASHTO Load Equivalency Factors (