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

  • Published on
    29-Jul-2018

  • 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 (LEFs) for Tridem

    Axle Loads........................................................................................................................17

    Table 4 Stress-Based LEF Analysis, 8-inch (203 mm) Slabs, Single Axle. .............................19

    Table 5 Stress-Based LEF Analysis, 10-inch (254 mm) Slabs, Single Axle. ...........................19

    Table 6 Stress-Based LEF Analysis, 8- and 10-inch (203 and 254 mm) Slabs, Tandem Axle..20

    Table 7 Stress-Based LEF Analysis, 8- and 10-inch (203 and 254 mm) Slabs, Tridem Axle. ..20

    Table 8 Fatigue-Based LEF Analysis, 8-inch (203 mm) Slabs, Single Axle. ...........................21

    Table 9 Fatigue-Based LEF Analysis, 10-inch (254 mm) Slabs, Single Axle. .........................21

    Table 10 Fatigue-Based LEF Analysis, 8- and 10-inch (203 and 254 mm) Slabs, Tandem Axle. ..

    ..................................................................................................................................22

    Table 11 Fatigue-Based LEF Analysis, 8- and 10-inch (203 and 254 mm) Slabs, Tridem Axle. 22

    Table 12 Performance Based LEF, 8- and 10-inch (203 mm 254 mm) Slab, Single Axle. .........24

    Table 13 Pavement Thickness Designs, ESALs versus Load Spectra........................................25

  • viii

    Table 14 Maximum Principal Stress for Each Finite Element Analysis Loading Configuration at

    17 C. .................................................................................................................................34

    Table 15 Opening Strengths and Other Data for Several Fast-Track Paving Projects. (from

    ACPA [29]).......................................................................................................................40

    Table 16 Recommended Opening Flexural Strengths (psi) for a Variety of Pavement Structures.

    (30) ..................................................................................................................................41

    Table 17 Results of Fatigue Analyses for Early Opening Time for Concrete Pavements. ..........43

    Table 18 Current LTPP ESALs for Two California Locations. .................................................43

    Table 19 Construction Times for Multi-Lane Construction Scenarios, 10-inch (25.4 cm) Slab

    Thickness. .........................................................................................................................46

    Table 20 Length of 254 mm Concrete Pavement That Can Be Constructed in Various Paving

    Times. ...............................................................................................................................51

  • 1

    1.0 BACKGROUND OF LLPRS

    The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Long-Life Pavement

    Rehabilitation Strategies (LLPRS) Task Force was commissioned in April 1997. The product

    that Caltrans has identified for the LLPRS Task Force to develop is Draft Long Life Pavement

    Rehabilitation guidelines and specifications for implementation on projects in the 1998/99 fiscal

    year. The focus of the LLPRS Task Force has been rigid pavement strategies. A separate task

    force has more recently been established for flexible pavement strategies, called the Asphalt

    Concrete Long-Life (AC Long-Life) Task Force.

    The University of California at Berkeley (UCB) and its subcontractors, Dynatest, Inc., the

    Roads and Transport Technology Division of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

    (CSIR), and Symplectic Engineering Corporation, Inc. are investigating for Caltrans the viability

    of various LLPRS optional strategies that have been proposed.

  • 2

  • 3

    2.0 OBJECTIVES

    2.1 LLPRS Objectives

    In recent years, Caltrans engineers and policy makers have felt that existing methods of

    rigid pavement maintenance and rehabilitation may not be optimum for a benefit/cost or lifecycle

    cost standpoint. Caltrans is also becoming more concerned about increasingly sever traffic

    management problems. The agency costs of applying lane closures in urban areas is very large

    compared to the actual costs of materials and placement, and increased need for maintenance

    forces to be in the roadway is increasing costs and safety risks. In addition, the costs to Caltrans

    clients, the pavement users, are increasing due to the increasing 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 use of ordinary Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) and will

    provide longer lives than the current assumed design life of 20 years for PCC pavements.

    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).

  • 4

    2.2 Contract Team Research Objectives

    The objective of the contract work is to develop as much information as possible to

    estimate whether the Long Life Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies for Rigid Pavements

    (LLPRS-Rigid) will meet the stated LLPRS-Rigid objectives. This Contract Team Research

    objective has been determined by the Caltrans LLPRS task force.

    The research test plan is designed to provide Caltrans with information regarding the

    following aspects of the LLPRS-Rigid design options being considered by Caltrans as ways to

    increase the performance and reliability of the pavements being placed in the field. (1) The

    objectives...

Recommended

View more >