-
SIP
Ultra Thin Concrete Pavements:Addressing the design issues
• Louw du Plessis
•
HVSIA 11 – 13 August 2014
HVS Program update:GPGRT and CSIR
-
Slide 2 of 41
Linking APT to reality: Retrospective analysis of HVS predictions vs true real life performance
• History of UTRCP testing• Mechanistic analysis of as-built information of
test pavements• Comparing HVS testing results with true
performance• Mechanistic analysis on results• Latest testing results (2013 – 2014)
-
Slide 3 of 41
-
Slide 4 of 41
UTRCP History: The Roodekrans Experiment
© CSIR 2011
© CSIR 2011 www.csir.co.za
-
Slide 5 of 41
Experimental section layoutSections 1 to 7
Section 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Surfacing
75 mm SFRC
75 mm SFRC
75 mm SFRC
50 mm CRCP
75 mm CRCP
100 mm CRCP
100 mm butt
jointed concreteLeveling
layer25 mm ETB
50 mm ETB
25 mm ETB
Support
140 mm foam
concrete125 mm stabilized subbase
In situ compacted gravel
-
Slide 6 of 41
-
Slide 7 of 41
-
Slide 8 of 41
Traffic
Design traffic 40 000 to 60 000 E80sActual traffic by June 2005
39 months 500 000 E80s 35% overloaded (10% : 400% overloaded)4 E80s per vehicle1.4 E80s per axle4 wet seasons
-
Slide 9 of 41
Mechanistic evaluation
Pavement structure3 layers - concrete surfacing, stabilized base, subgrade
Stiffness concrete28 GPa
Stiffness of base1000 MPa
Stiffness of subgrade support Between 140 MPa and 70 MPa
Focus on tensile stress of the concrete Indicate potential for cracking
-
Slide 10 of 41
Mechanistic evaluation (4)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 50 100 150 200Slab Thickness (mm)
Max
. Ten
sile
Stre
ss (M
Pa) 300 unbonded
300 bonded
1500 unb.
1500 bonded
12000 unb.
12000 bonded
Base stiffnesses
-
Slide 11 of 41
Mechanistic evaluation
98.00%
100.00%
102.00%
104.00%
106.00%
108.00%
110.00%
112.00%
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Percentage of subgrade stiffness
Perc
enta
ge o
f ten
sile
str
ain
50 mm 75 mm 100 mm 140 mm
SG Reference stiffness = 140 MPa
-
Slide 12 of 41
Significance
Incorrect to conclude - thin concrete sections can be used for any application
Understanding of reasons for performancePostulated - reason good performance
Relatively strong support and high bond provided by the substructure
-
Slide 13 of 41
Mamelodi Investigation
-
Slide 14 of 41
GAUTENG DPTRW – 20T PROJECTS MAMELODI STREETS
-
Slide 15 of 41
-
Slide 16 of 41
-
Slide 17 of 41
-
Slide 18 of 41
-
Slide 19 of 41
-
Slide 20 of 41
-
Slide 21 of 41
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Def
lect
ion
(mm
)
CBR(
%)
Chainage (m)
CBR and Deflection results: Road 3
CBR: Base layer CBR: Subbase CBR: Subgrade Max Deflection (mm) Unmarked areas
-
Slide 22 of 41
Road #(mm) std Base std Subbase std Subgrade std
1 1.01 0.21 18.7 8.9 15.5 9.6 12.9 7.702 1.00 0.30 46.0 41.0 16.0 11.6 14.9 20.553 1.15 0.59 13.2 6.1 8.4 2.6 12.1 9.594 0.95 0.18 12.8 3.7 12.0 2.4 11.0 2.005 0.84 0.47 9.8 2.6 6.5 2.5 10.3 0.506 1.35 0.47 13.8 4.3 7.8 1.9 6.0 2.45
Ave 1.05 0.37 19.02 11.08 11.0 5.11 11.2 7.13
DCP CBR derived resultsRSD Deflections
Summary of Ave deflections and CBR data
Compare to Roodekrans: CBR = 75
-
Slide 23 of 41
HVS Evaluation : R80
-
Slide 24 of 41
SOSHANGUVE BUS ROUTE
Earthworks and shapingof in-situ layer
Competed UTRCP roadwith side drain
-
Slide 25 of 41
Ave deflection (excl ash section) = 0.59mm
Comparison: Soshanguve & R80 HVS UTRCP sites
-
Slide 26 of 41
-
Slide 27 of 41
Analysis performed using EverFE 2.24 and cncPave 404,
Assumed material properties 30-40 MPaconcrete:
MOR = 4.0 MPa, ft = 2.0 MPa
E = 30 GPa, Poisson’s ratio 0.2
Coef. of thermal expansion: 12 10-6 /ºC
Pavement surface temperature : 40 ºC
Temperature differential: 4 ºC
Analysis
© CSIR 2011
-
Slide 28 of 41
MOR = Flexural strength of concrete
Because it’s a specialised test the compressive strength are used (fc)
MOR = k√fc K = spring stiffness (MPa/mm):
stress on SG/deflection ≈ 0.74
Thus for a 30MPa concrete MOR = 4 MPa
SG is modelled as a dense liquid (winkler spring)
- Westergaard 1926 -
Modulus of Rupture (MOR)
© CSIR 2011
-
Slide 29 of 41
Deflection survey: Average Deflections 0.
0-0
.5-1
.0-1
.5-2
.0-2
.5
Mamelodi
Defle
ctio
n [m
m]
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
R80
Def
lect
ion
[mm
]
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
Shoshanguve
Def
lect
ion
[mm
]
Mamelodi: 1.0 mm HVS R80: 0.7 mm Shoshanguve 0.6 mm
-
Slide 30 of 41
Matching measured deflections Mamelodi
Layer Thickness Modulus [MPa] Poisson’s ratio Concrete slab 50 30 000 0.2 Granular 150 70 0.35 Granular 150 60 0.35 Granular 150 50 0.35 Subgrade ∞ varied N/A
Subgrade modulus [MPa]
Spring stiffness (k) [MPa/mm]
Deflection [mm]
Maximum tensile stress [MPa]
50 0.258 0.659 7.62 40 0.206 0.696 7.68 20 0.103 0.859 7.90 10 0.052 1.13 8.17 5 0.026 1.58 8.46
-
Slide 31 of 41
Comparing stresses at different sections
© CSIR 2011
-
Slide 32 of 41
cncPave Analysis of the Mamelodi structure
Pavement Model as above with a SG moduli of 15 Mpa (to get to the ave surface deflection of 1mm with a 80kN load)
Loading according to cncPave Urban load Spectra
-
Slide 33 of 41
cncPave Analysis of the Mamelodi structure
The results from the analysis indicate:• There is a 50% probability that the surface area with shattered concrete will
be excessive after 7 years, and• a 80% probability that shattering will be excessive after 10 years.
• Analysis in agreement with what was observed: an unacceptably short life for a concrete pavement, which are typically designed to last past 20 years.
cncPave decision criteria UTRCP
Decision variable Good Acceptable Excessive
% shattered concrete below 0.2 % 0.2 % to 0.5 % over 0.5 %
% pumping below 2 % 2 % to 5 % over 5 %
Crack spacing 0.3 m - 0.5 m 0.2 m to 0.7 m below 0.2 m or over 0.7 m
-
Slide 34 of 41
Design approach: Transfer function of the new American Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPG 2004)
© CSIR 2011
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
1.E+00 1.E+05 1.E+10 1.E+15 1.E+20 1.E+25 1.E+30
stre
ss/s
tren
gth
ratio
Load repititions to failure (N)
NCHRP 1-37A
1
1
bd
MORaN
=σ
-
Slide 35 of 41
Latest HVS testing
• Original UTRCP design of 50mm is for Residential and low vol road applications. CSIR & GDRP is looking at a 75mm version (with more steel) and better support to be used in higher order roads such as provincial roads (typically up to 10 million E80s during lifespan)
• Preliminary results look very promising, indicating that this technology can be used with success on higher order roads.
• Parallel to this CSIR & GDRT are continuing its research on the performance of RCC using a high percentage of hand labour
-
Slide 36 of 41
Design Traffic ES 10: 3 - 10 million ES 1: 0.3 - 1million E80s
Ref 193 mesh (200x200 Ref 193 mesh (200x200x 5.6mm dia) x 5.6mm dia)
75mm UTRCP (30MPa)150mm C3 (parent G4) (1.5 - 3 Mpa, 97% MOD AASHTO) G4 (min CBR 80, 98% MOD AASHTO)150mm C4 (Parent G6) (UCS 0.75 - 1.5MPa, 95% MOD AASHTO) G6 (min CBR 25, 95% MOD AASHTO)150mm
Ref 289 mesh (100x200 x 5.6mm dia)
G6 (min CBR 25, 95% MOD AASHTO)G9 Roadbed prep 93% MOD AASHTO
3.5m
100m
Test sections
-
Slide 37 of 41
75mm UTRCP Construction
-
Slide 38 of 41
-
Slide 39 of 41
RCCUTRCP
Slide Number 1Linking APT to reality: Retrospective analysis of HVS predictions vs true real life performanceSlide Number 3Slide Number 4Experimental section layout�Sections 1 to 7Slide Number 6Slide Number 7Traffic Mechanistic evaluationMechanistic evaluation (4)Mechanistic evaluationSignificance Mamelodi InvestigationGAUTENG DPTRW – 20T PROJECTS MAMELODI STREETSSlide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21Slide Number 22Slide Number 23SOSHANGUVE BUS ROUTESlide Number 25Slide Number 26Slide Number 27Slide Number 28Slide Number 29Slide Number 30Slide Number 31Slide Number 32Slide Number 33Slide Number 34Slide Number 35Slide Number 3675mm UTRCP ConstructionSlide Number 38Slide Number 39