coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete pavements - kohler.pdf · erwin kohler ramon alvarado...
Post on 06-Dec-2018
224 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Erwin KohlerRamon Alvarado
David Jones
University of California Pavement Research Center
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Concrete Pavements
TRB Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.January 24th, 2007
Importance of CTE for pavements
• Joint opening LTE• Thermal curling cracking• Joint sealant perf. spalling• Even potential for
catastrophic failures such as blow ups
FHWA CTE Testing
• FHWA has CTE from over 1,800 samples• Lab cast and drilled cores from LTPP
sections • Result from 670 tests is that CTE ranges
between 5.0 and 7.0 microstrain/°F. • Objective: validating data for the
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (ME-PDG)
TxDOT CTE Testing
• Concretes made with coarse aggregates from > 30 sources in Texas
• Large variance in CTE with concrete containing river gravels,
• More consistent CTE with crushed limestone aggregates
• Objective: improve reinforcement design and construction specs for CRCP
CTE in ME-PDG
• Transverse crack predictions highly dependent on the assumed CTE value
Variable Factor Levels
1 COTE (2) 4 × 10-6/ºF 7 × 10e-6/ºF
2 Axle Load Spectra (2) Urban Rural
3 Traffic Volume (1) TI: 16
4 PCC Thickness (2) 9 in. 12 in.
5 Base Type (1) Cement Treated Base
6 Dowels (2) Dowels No Dowels
7 Shoulder Type (3) Asphalt Shoulders Tied Shoulders Widened Truck Lane
8 Joint Spacing (2) 15 ft. 19 ft.
9 Climate Regions (3) Mountain Valley South Coast
10 Subgrade Type (1) SP 11 Strength (1) 626 psi Total Number of Cases: 288
Experiment to Study Effect of CTE
Effect on cracking and faulting
• 4 × 10-6/ºF corresponds to limestone or granite aggregate; • 7 × 10-6/ºF corresponds to quartzite, cherts
4 7
0
20
40
60
80
100
% Slabs Cracked
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Faulting (in.)
4 7CTE (x10-6/ºF)CTE (x10-6/ºF)
Testing Procedure
AASHTO TP60 + recommendations by Texas DOT
Steps to test CTE
1. Specimen preparation : - 100mm (4 inches) diameter cores- Cut flat surfaces top and bottom- Length from 165 to 210mm (6 ½ to 8 ¼ inches)
2. Submerge specimen in limewater for at least 2 days.
3. Measure exact length of the specimen4. Specimen is placed in the testing frame which
is submerged in water5. Test
Steps to test CTE (cont’d)
Steps to test CTE (cont’d)
Temperature sequenceStep Temperature Duration
1 10°C 30min
2 Change from 10°C to 50°C
2hr 15min
3 50°C 30min
4 Change from 50°C to 10°C
2hr 15min
5 10°C 30min
Software’s screen capture
5.11
5.12
Thermal cycling
1. The thermal cycling is automatically repeated three times to obtain more stable readings, as explained later
2. Each cycle takes ~6 hours entire test is ~18 hours.
Frame correction• Correction to account for
thermal deformation on the frame that supports the LVDT.
• Correction obtained using cylinders of known CTE:–3 stainless steel 304 –3 aluminum 6061 T-6
Regression to determine CTE
Test 1, rising: CTE=6.40y = 0.002x - 0.0449R2 = 0.99995
Test 1, falling: CTE=6.10y = 0.0019x - 0.0382R2 = 0.9994
Test 2, rising: CTE=6.63y = 0.002x + 0.0797R2 = 0.9999
Test 2, falling: CTE=6.60y = 0.002x + 0.0805R2 = 0.9997
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55Temperature (C)
Rel
ativ
e di
spla
cem
ent (
mm
) .
Effect of consecutive thermal cycles
• Better regressions are obtained with consecutive thermal cycles
• Reduction in the difference between the rising and falling CTE
• Lower CTE
Effect of consecutive thermal cycles
0.99700
0.99750
0.99800
0.99850
0.99900
0.99950
1 2 3
Thermal Cycle
R2
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
1 2 3
Thermal CycleC
TE (m
icro
stra
in/F
) .
Rising(heating)
Falling(cooling)
CTE decreases with additional cycles:3rd CTE is lower than 1st CTE in 76% of cases3rd CTE is lower than 1st CTE by 0.1 /°F in 48% of cases3rd CTE was on average 0.15 /°F lower than 1st CTE
R2 CTE
3rd CTE vs 1st CTE
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
1st CTE (10-6/°F )
3rd
CTE
(10
-6/°
F )
Effect of concrete saturation
• 1 oven-dried core, saturated for 4 days• 2 oven-dried cores, immediate test
CTE at high saturation levels
85%
90%
95%
100%
105%
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 288
Time (hours)
Satu
ratio
n (%
) .
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
97% 98% 99% 100% 101%
Saturation (%)
CTE
(mic
rost
rain
/°F)
Oven-dried cores, immediate test
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 10 20 30 40 50
CTE
(mic
rost
rain
/°F)
RisingFalling
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (hours)
CTE
(mic
rost
rain
/°F)
Comparison With Results From Other Laboratories
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
TX-1 FHWA-1 FHWA-2 FHWA-3 FHWA-4 TX-2
CTE
(mic
rost
rain
/F)
UCPRCTX or FHWA
50 rigid pavement sites, 56 composite pavement sites (ac overlay)
• Mechanistic inputs being collected– thickness, joint spacing, accumulated traffic, subgrade
type, solar reflectivity, etc.
• Data will be used to verify the effect of CTE and other factors on concrete pavements.
Histograms of CTE values
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
District 4n=42
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Num
ber o
f cor
es
District 2n=9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
CTE (microstrain/F)
District 11n=4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Num
ber o
f cor
esAll
data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
CTE (microstrain/F)
Num
ber o
f cor
es
District 10n=19
across the state: 4.5 to 6.7 microstrain/°F.
District 2 : 6.3District 4 : 5.2 District 10: 6.4 District 11: 5.5
Geographical Variability
Aggregate types in CA
• District 2:–alluvial or glacial deposits. A mix of
sedimentary (sandstone) and volcanic (basalt) rocks
• Districts 4 and 10:–sedimentary (predominantly sandstone), more
angular and probably quarried. • District 11:
–predominantly granitic and probably quarried
CTE spatial variability
3.03.54.0
4.55.05.56.0
6.57.0
13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5
Postmile
CTE
(mic
rost
rain
/°F) Northbound
Southbound
Site 4-SCL-85
3.03.54.0
4.55.05.56.0
6.57.0
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Postmile
CTE
(mic
rost
rain
/°F)
Eastbound
Westbound
Site 10-SJ-580
CTE spatial variability
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Postmile
CTE
(mic
rost
rain
/°F) .
Eastbound
Site 4-SOL-80
3.03.54.0
4.55.05.56.0
6.57.0
50.0 50.5 51.0 51.5 52.0 52.5 53.0 53.5
CTE
(mic
rost
rain
/°F) Northbound
Southbound
Site 4-SON-101
3.03.54.0
4.55.05.56.0
6.57.0
25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Postmile
CTE
(mic
rost
rain
/°F)
Northbound
Southbound
Site 2-SHA-5
3.03.54.0
4.55.05.56.0
6.57.0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
CTE
(mic
rost
rain
/°F) Southbound
Site 11-IMP-86
Summary and Conclusions
• CTE being evaluated from in-service pavements in California
• Involves thermal cycles in a waterbath• Range is 4.5 to 6.7 microstrain/°F• 3-cycle testing is good practice:
–Better regressions –Reduction in difference between ramps–(Lower CTE)
• Continue work
Thanks
Erwin KohlerUniversity of California Pavement Research Center
Project Scientist, PhDCivil and Environmental Engineering, UC-Davis
530-754-8699
ekohler@ucdavis.edu
top related