Practical Conclusions from ODOT Research Projects · 2019. 9. 17. · Rational Approach to Base...
Transcript of Practical Conclusions from ODOT Research Projects · 2019. 9. 17. · Rational Approach to Base...
Practical Conclusions from ODOT Research Projects
2008 Ohio Asphalt Paving Conference
ODOT Pavement Research
20 active research projects– Pavement Design– Pavement Rehabilitation– Pavement Management– Preventive Maintenance
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
Truck/Pavement/Economic Modeling & In-Situ Field Data Analysis Application
FHWA/OH-2006/3ADrs. Sargand, Wu, & FigueroaOhio University
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
LOG-33-17.82
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
Section Density (pcf) Modulus (ksi)390101 116.8 11.69390102 124.6 20.37390103 119.8 15.69390104 119.7 16.85390105 117.6 15.54390106 123.4 17.88390107 121.3 16.76390108 117.4 18.95390109 119.7 11.51390110 118.0 12.95390111 121.3 18.08390112 121.9 13.82390159 118.9 5.77390160 123.1 18.63
Average 120.3 15.32Std. Dev. 2.4 3.87
CV 2% 25%
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
12
14
16
18
20
22
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt (%
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Year
0.2
0.8
1.6
390108 4”PATB/8”DGAB
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
9" 36" 72"section base type
101 DGAB 18.7 19.3 20.9104 ATB 19.3 19.2 20.1108 PATB/DGAB 19.2 15.6 19.1110 ATB/PATB 19.8 19.1 20.2112 ATB/PATB 18.5 17.7 17.8
Depth below subgrade surfaceMedian Moisture Content (%)
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
Subgrade moisture is not necessary from the surfaceSubgrade density meets specification does not assure uniform subgrade strengthBase types do not affect subgrade moisture content
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
Purpose of base– Construction platform– Add protection against frost action– Increase load-supporting capacity of the pavement by
providing added stiffness– Distribute load– Provide drainage
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
304 IA NJ CE Cement AsphaltFine 206 873 2234 2654Median 1417 2277 3824 3703Coarse 5443 8210 7850 8720
25345 25061
Permeability (ft/day)
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
LOG-33 Free Draining Bases
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150Station
Nor
mal
ized
df1
(mils
/kip
)
ATFDB CTFDB 307NJ 307IA 304
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
Free Draining Bases, LOG-33
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
PSI
304307 IA307 NJATFDBCTFDB
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
PCR, LOG-33
0102030405060708090
100
1994 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
PCR
304307 IA307 NJATFDBCTFDB
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
CTFDB had much higher MR than other basesNJ, IA, 304 about equalATFDB had the lowest MRRoughness – all sections generally similarPavement condition – all sections generally similar
– Decline in rating for ATFDB in 2001ATFDB cores showed evidence of some stripping of asphalt from aggregateMarch, 2001 moratorium on free draining bases.
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
Free Draining Bases, ERI/LOR-2
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006Year
Ave
rage
Num
ber o
f Tra
nsve
rse
Cra
cks
per S
lab
304, 13'
CTFDB,13'307 typeIA, 13'307 typeNJ, 13'ATFDB,13'310, 13'
304,25'
CTFDB,25'307 typeIA, 25'307 typeNJ, 25'ATFDB,25'310, 25'
section overlaid
section overlaid
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
0
1
2
3
4
4 6 8 10 12Granular Base Thickness (in)
Def
lect
ion
D0
(mm
/9 k
ips)
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
D0
on A
TB (m
m)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5D0 on Base or Subgrade (mm)
ATB100
ATB200
ATB300
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Def
lect
ion
Red
uctio
n (m
m)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Underneath (D0 in mm)
on SG
on GB
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
GB > 200mm (8”) increase subgrade stiffness and uniformityThicker GB increase both stiffness and uniformityATB of 200mm (8”) thick is much more uniform than 100 mm (4”)
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
Summary1. Base type has little impact on subgrade moisture
and initial pavement performance2. Choice of base type depends chiefly on three
requirements– appropriate stiffness– sufficient permeability– good constructability
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
Recommendations– For uniformly weak or highly variable subgrades,
bases with high stiffness or very thick granular base is recommended. Soil stabilization may be used to improve subgrade stiffness.
– For strong, uniform subgrades, granular base and ATB are suitable choices
Rational Approach to Base Type Selection
Technical Notes Published– Evaluation of Base Materials under Flexible
Pavement (ORITE-8)LOG 33
– Pavement Design Feature Effects on SubgradeVolumetric Moisture Content (ORITE-9)
DEL 23
Fractured Slab Techniques – Break & Seat
Effectiveness of Breaking and Seating of Reinforced PCC Pavementbefore Overlay FHWA/OH-95/023
Long Term Monitoring of Broken and Seated Pavement FHWA/OH-2002/024Drs. Minkarah and ArudiUniversity of Cincinnati
Investigation of Pavement Cracking on SR4 and Demonstration of the Multihead Breaker in Fracturing Reinforced Concrete Pavement before Asphalt Overlay FHWA/OH-2006/12Dr. ArudiInframe
FHWA Special Project 202
Fractured Slab Techniques – Break & Seat
Major rehabilitation technique for jointed reinforced concrete pavement– break pavement into small slabs (18”)– retards reflective cracking
1992 moratorium on break & seat– non uniform break pattern– partial debonding of steel
Fractured Slab Techniques – Break & Seat
Special Project 202– MUS-70
control, 6” pattern, 18” pattern, 30” patternguillotine pavement breaker7” asphalt overlay on all sectionsconstructed in 1991
Fractured Slab Techniques – Break & Seat
University of Cincinnati & Inframe studies– FAY/MAD-71
control, 18” break patternguillotine pavement breaker8 ½” asphalt overlay on all sectionsconstructed in 1992
– GRE/MOT-4control, 18” break patternpile hammer pavement breaker6 ½ “ asphalt overly on all sectionconstructed in 1993
Fractured Slab Techniques – Break & Seat
Special Project 202, Transverse Cracking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Aug-91Dec
-91Apr-9
2Aug-92Dec
-92Apr-9
3Aug-93Dec
-93Apr-9
4Aug-94Dec
-94Apr-9
5Aug-95Dec
-95Apr-9
6Aug-96Dec
-96Apr-9
7Aug-97
Date
% o
f Joi
nts
& W
orki
ng C
rack
s
Control
6" Pattern
18" Pattern
30" Pattern
Fractured Slab Techniques – Break & Seat
Special Project 202, High Severity Cracking
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Aug-91Dec
-91Apr-9
2Aug-92Dec
-92Apr-9
3Aug-93Dec
-93Apr-9
4Aug-94Dec
-94Apr-9
5Aug-95Dec
-95Apr-9
6Aug-96Dec
-96Apr-9
7Aug-97
Date
% o
f Joi
nts
and
Wor
king
Cra
cks Control
6" Pattern18" Pattern30" Pattern
Fractured Slab Techniques – Break & Seat
Reflective Cracking: I-71 & SR 4
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.
Age (years)
% J
oint
s/R
epai
rs R
efle
cted
I-71 SB Control I-71 SB B&S
SR-4 NB Control SR-4 NB B&S
SR-4 SB Control SR-4 SB B&S
section rehabilitated
section rehabilitated
Fractured Slab Techniques – Break & Seat
4’
120’
18”
4’
120’
18”
Fractured Slab Techniques – Break & Seat
MHB and Pile Hammer do not produce a uniform breaking pattern throughout the depth of concrete slabConsiderable variability exists in the extent of breakingSteel debonding is not consistentAfter 11 years being in service, most of the joints on SR-4 B/S sections reflected; however, their severity is NOT as extensive as that of control sections
Fractured Slab Techniques – Break & Seat
Rehabilitation Performance Trends
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Age (years)
PCR
Log.(UBCO)
Log.(NewRigid)
Log.(B&S /C&S)
Log.(R&R)
Log.(Rep &OL)
Log.(NewFlex)
Fractured Slab Techniques – Break & Seat
Not recommended as a major rehabilitation for JRCP in OhioNot recommended for high type routes Viable for minor rehabilitationGuillotine hammer is not recommended for breaking the pavementA minimum overlay thickness of 6” is recommended
Perpetual Pavement
Perpetual Pavement
Test Section, 664+00
West End Tie In
Perpetual Pavement
Weather Station & WIM Test Section, 876+60
McQuaid Road Overpass
Perpetual Pavement
Maximum Tensile Strain for Fatigue CrackTensile Strain < 70 me
Surface: High Performance Base: Economical & Durable Fatigue Resistant Layer
Design Input: Material’s Properties
SMA E = 500,000 psi PR = 0.35 19 mm SUPERPAVE E = 500,000 psi PR = 0.35
Intermediate (302) E = 500,000 psi PR = 0.35
Fatigue Resistant Layer (302) E = 500,000 psi PR = 0.35
Aggregate Base (304) E = 20,000 psi PR = 0.40
Subgrade CBR = 4, 5, and 6 PR = 0.45
Perpetual Pavement
(304) Aggregate Base6
94-9764-223.0(302) Special Fatigue Resistant Base Layer
4
93-9664-224.5(302) Asphalt Concrete
Base
9
93-9776-22M4.0(442) Asphalt Concrete
Inter. Course, 19mm Type A
1.75
93-9776-22M3.5(443) Stone Matrix Asphalt Concr, 12.5mm
1.50
Target Density (%)
PG BinderDesign Air Voids (%)
MaterialThickness
(inches)
(304) Aggregate Base6
94-9764-223.0(302) Special Fatigue Resistant Base Layer
4
93-9664-224.5(302) Asphalt Concrete
Base
9
93-9776-22M4.0(442) Asphalt Concrete
Inter. Course, 19mm Type A
1.75
93-9776-22M3.5(443) Stone Matrix Asphalt Concr, 12.5mm
1.50
Target Density (%)
PG BinderDesign Air Voids (%)
MaterialThickness
(inches)
Perpetual Pavement
5 mph Test: ODOT 28.2 Kip Single Axle Truck, December, 2005
-10
-505
101520
2530
35
3 5 7 9 11
Time (sec)
Stra
in (u
e)
Longitudinal Strain
Perpetual Pavement
Longitudinal Strain in Fatigue Resistance Layer -- Single Axle 20.5 kip 25 mph- AC 876A - Run 3 07/18/2006
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6
Time (sec)
Stra
in (µ
e)
DYN-005DYN-006DYN-008
Perpetual Pavement
Longitudinal Strain in Fatigue Resistance Layer -- Single Axle 20.5 kip 25 mph- AC 876B - Run 3 07/18/2006
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8Time (sec)
Stra
in (µ
e)
DYN-009DYN-013DYN-015DYN-016
Perpetual Pavement
Perpetual Pavement
0
250
500
750
1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cores Taken from Sites with NO Segregation
Res
ilien
t Mod
ulus
(ksi
) 500 ksi used in Design
Perpetual Pavement
0
250
500
750
1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cores from WAY-30 Segregated Section
Res
ilien
t Mod
ulus
(ksi
)
Perpetual Pavement
0
50
100
150
200
4" Cores from WAY-30 Segregated Section
Indi
rect
Ten
sile
Stre
ngth
(psi
)
Fine Mix Coarse Mix
Perpetual Pavement
Perpetual Pavement
57
342
0
100
200
300
400
Complete Pavement FRL only
Tens
ile S
train
at t
he B
otto
m(m
icro
stra
in)
Perpetual Pavement
Typical Fatigue (S-N) Diagram
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10
Number of Cycles to Failure
Fatig
ue S
train
( m
icro
stra
in)
Un-CUn-IUn-FSBS-CSBS-ISBS-F
34 kip on complete pavement
34 kip on FRL
Fatigue Limit
Research Reports
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/research/default.asp