Evaluating Performance of Concrete Overlays for Pavement ...
Concrete Overlays in Texas - Texas A&M University · Concrete Overlays in Texas 90th Annual...
Transcript of Concrete Overlays in Texas - Texas A&M University · Concrete Overlays in Texas 90th Annual...
Concrete Overlays in Texas
90th Annual Transportation Short CourseOctober 12, 2016
Moon Won, P.E.Texas Tech University
1
Presentation Overview
• Concrete Pavement in Texas
• Overview of Concrete Overlays in Texas
• Performance of Concrete Overlays in Texas
• Current Efforts to Improve Concrete Overlays
• Summary
2
PCC Pavement in Texas
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
Lan
e M
iles
[mile
]
CRCP
CPCD
3TxDOT PMIS
General Concept in Current Overlay Type
Selection
4
Helga N. Torres., et al., Guide to the Design of Concrete Overlays Using Existing
Methodologies, DTFH61-06-H-00011 (Work Plan 13), National Concrete Pavement
Technology Center Institute for Transportation, Iowa State University, 2012
Overview of Concrete Overlays in Texas
• Overlay Structures
– CPCD on CPCD
– CRCP on CRCP
– Thin PCP on CRCP
– CRCP on CPCD
• Overlay Thickness: 2-in to 12-in
• Interface
– Bonded
– Unbonded
5
Overview of Concrete Overlays in Texas
6
Highway/Location ExistingPavement
Overlay Type Overlay Construction
Performance
Loop 610S/Houston
8-in CRCP 2-in & 3-in BCO 1983 Satisfactory
Loop 610N/Houston
8-in CRCP 4-in BCO 1986 Excellent
IH 35/Denton 10-in CPCD 11-in CPCD 1988 Satisfactory
IH 35E/Waxahachie 10-in CPCD 10-in CPCD 1990 Excellent
IH 10/Beaumont 10-in CPCD 12-in CPCD 1994 Excellent
IH 10/El Paso 8-in CRCP 6.5-in CRCP 1996 Mixed
SH 146/Baytown 8-in CRCP 3-in BCO 1998 Early Failure
US 281/Wichita Falls 8-in CRCP 4-in CRCP 2002 Excellent
US 75/Sherman 10-in CPCD 7-in CRCP 2010 Mixed
US 287/Bowie 8-in CRCP 4-in CRCP 2012 Premature Failure
Performance of Concrete Overlays in Texas
• Loop 610 South in Houston
• IH 35 in Denton
• IH 35 E in Waxahachie
• SH 146 in Baytown
• US 281 in Wichita Falls
• US 75 in Sherman
• US 287 in Bowie
7
1. S Loop 610 EB in Houston
Limits: From Doolittle Blvd to Calais Rd
Harris County
Completed in 1983
2-in & 3-in BCO
8-in existing CRCP
11
IH 35 NB_Denton
33.324244, -97.180385
CSJ: 0195-02-035
Denton County
Completed in 1988
11-in CPCD Overlay
220#/SY ACP Level Up
10-in existing CPCD
2. IH 35 in Denton
1960 Typical Section (DAL-IH 35 - 0195-02-016)
1987 Typical Section (DAL-IH 35 - 0195-02-035)
6-in Roadbed Treatment
6-in Roadbed Treatment (Type B)
Existing 10-in CPCD
10-in CPCD
11-in CPCD
13
03/23/2012 02/20/2016
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
10
5
12
0
13
5
15
0
16
5
18
0
19
5
21
0
22
5
24
0
25
5
27
0
28
5
30
0
Load
Tra
nsf
er
Effi
cie
ncy
Def
lect
ion
@9
,00
0lb
s [m
ils]
Distance [ft]
Average Deflection (D1)
Average LTE
Deflection Testing
y = -3.61ln(x) + 10.888R² = 0.9704
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Ave
rage
De
fle
ctio
n [
mil
s]
Slab Thickness [in]
Statewide Average Deflection
16
Ellis County
Completed in 1990
10-in CPCD Slab
1.4-in ACP
10-in existing CPCD
3. IH 35E in Waxahachie
Pavement Structure (from LTPP database)
18
Deflection Testing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
1
2
3
4
50
15
30
45
60
75
90
10
5
12
0
13
5
15
0
16
5
18
0
19
5
21
0
22
5
24
0
25
5
27
0
28
5
30
0
Load
Tra
nsf
er
Effi
cie
ncy
Def
lect
ion
@9
,00
0lb
s
Distance [ft]
Average Deflection (D1)Average LTE
CSJ: 0389-13-XXX
Harris County
3-in BCO (built in 1998) + 8-in existing CRCP
3-in BCO
8-in existing CRCP
4. SH 146 in Baytown
23
24
CSJ: 0249-01-XXX
Wichita County
4-in BCO (built in 2002) + 8-in existing CRCP (built in 1969, CSJ: 0249-01-012)
4-in BCO
8-in existing CRCP
5. US 281 in Wichita Falls
29
FWD
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Near the Construction Joint Deflection Data
FWD
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Near the Construction Joint Deflection Data
FWD
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Near the Construction Joint Deflection Data
FWD
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Near the Construction Joint Deflection Data
FWD
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Near the Construction Joint Deflection Data
• From Travis Street in Sherman to FM 84
6. US 75 in Sherman
36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
CP
CD
Def
lect
ion
@ 9
,00
0 lb
s [m
ils]
BC
O D
efle
ctio
n @
9,0
00
lbs
[mils
]
Joint #
CRCP (Mid Slab)CPCD (Joint-Mid Slab-Joint)
Distress PCP
CJ (J-45)
Morning Section
J-31 J-76, 80, 86, 92, 93, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107,110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116
J-56
Afternoon Section
Deflection (BCO vs CPCD) vs Distress
37
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120
BC
O D
efle
ctio
n @
9,0
00 lb
s [m
ils]
Range of Joint #
Frequency [N]
101 102 103 104 105
106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115
116 117 118 119 120
US75 - South – Start at Exit 64
U M D U M D U M D U M D A B B
M D A A B A B U M D A B C
U M D U M D U M D U M D U M D
A B C D B C DA B C DA A B C A B B C C
Joint 101-120Nu
mb
er
of
Dis
tre
ss [
N]
Distress Distribution
Joint #
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120
BC
O D
efle
ctio
n @
9,0
00 lb
s [m
ils]
Range of Joint #
Frequency [N]
101 102 103 104 105
106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115
116 117 118 119 120
US75 - South – Start at Exit 64
U M D U M D U M D U M D A B B
M D A A B A B U M D A B C
U M D U M D U M D U M D U M D
A B C D B C DA B C DA A B C A B B C C
Joint 101-120Nu
mb
er
of
Dis
tre
ss [
N]
Joint #38
J-111J-110
39
CSJ: 0013-005-XXX
Montague County
Overlaid with AC + 4-in BCO (built in Nov, 2012) + 8-in existing CRCP (built in 1972, CSJ 0013-005-017)
Overlaid with AC
4-in BCO
8-in existing CRCP
7. US 287 in Bowie
N 33˚ 30’ 04.53” W 97˚ 48’ 31.37”
Condition of Existing CRCP
41
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
50
90
13
0
17
0
21
0
25
0
29
0
33
0
37
0
41
0
45
0
49
0
53
0
57
0
61
0
65
0
69
0
73
0
77
0
81
0
85
0
89
0
93
0
97
0
Def
lect
ion
@ 9
,00
0 lb
s
Distance [ft]
FWD deflection
42
y = -3.61ln(x) + 10.888R² = 0.9704
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Ave
rage
Def
lect
ion
[m
ils]
Slab Thickness [in]
Statewide Average Deflection
43
12/03/2010 04/25/2012
08/13/2013
44
STEP 3. Testing Device Setup STEP 4. Loading and Pull-Out
STEP 1. D=2-in Coring STEP 2. Disk Attachment
45
Schematic of Pull-Off Test
46
AREA
D1 D2 D3 D4 AVE. D [in2] [kN] [lb] [psi] [Mpa] N W
#1 1.99 1.99 1.989 1.988 1.989 3.11 N 33 29 45.27 W 97 48 18.65
#2 1.977 1.977 1.967 1.97 1.973 3.06 2.35 528 173 1.2
#3 1.976 1.985 1.971 1.971 1.976 3.07 1.60 360 117 0.8
#4 1.957 1.969 1.983 1.966 1.969 3.04 2.60 585 192 1.3
#5 1.989 1.98 1.983 1.98 1.983 3.09
#6 1.975 1.969 1.979 1.983 1.977 3.07
#7 1.978 1.974 1.978 1.985 1.979 3.08 2.50 562 183 1.3
#8 1.982 1.985 1.978 1.976 1.980 3.08 1.70 382 124 0.9
#9 1.963 1.962 1.972 1.979 1.969 3.04 2.70 607 199 1.4
#10 1.984 1.976 1.979 1.974 1.978 3.07 3.20 719 234 1.6
#11 1.992 1.986 1.978 1.968 1.981 3.08 3.10 697 226 1.6
#12 1.984 1.987 1.974 1.975 1.980 3.08 3.30 742 241 1.7
#13 1.983 1.987 1.98 1.976 1.982 3.08 2.30 517 168 1.2
#14 1.969 1.985 1.98 1.985 1.980 3.08 2.60 585 190 1.3 N 33 26 26.30 W 97 45 55.35
Standard Deviation, SD [psi] 40
Coefficient of Variation, COV [%] 22%
Base Broken [%] 7%
Analyzed Sample [%] 79%
Average Bond Strength [psi] 186
GPS Coordinates
FAILURE
BASE BROKEN
FAILURE
Failure [%] 14%
Test #Diameter of Core Specimen Load Bond Strength
Bond Strength Test Results
186 psi47
48
Current Efforts to Improve Concrete Overlays
• Research Project 0-6910
49
General Concept in Current Overlay Type
Selection
50
Helga N. Torres., et al., Guide to the Design of Concrete Overlays Using Existing
Methodologies, DTFH61-06-H-00011 (Work Plan 13), National Concrete Pavement
Technology Center Institute for Transportation, Iowa State University, 2012
Current Efforts to Improve Concrete Overlays
• Research Project 0-6910
• Threshold values for BCO/UBCO
• Improved design procedures
– AASHTO UBCO too conservative
• Construction specifications
51
Summary
• TxDOT has many miles of PCC pavement that
already exceeded or are approaching design lives.
• Concrete overlays could provide a cost-effective
rehabilitation method.
• Overall, the performance of concrete overlays in
Texas has been quite satisfactory, with some
exceptions.
• Efforts are underway to further improve PCC
overlay design/construction practices.
52