Development of a Design Guide for Ultra Thin Whitetopping (UTW) FINAL REPORT November 1998 Submitted by NJDOT Research Project Manager Mr. Nicholas Vitillo FHWA NJ 2001-018 Nenad Gucunski Professor In cooperation with New Jersey Department of Transportation Division of Research and Technology and U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Center for Advanced Infrastructure & Transportation (CAIT) Civil & Environmental Engineering Rutgers, The State University Piscataway, NJ 08854-8014
70
Embed
Development of a Design Guide for Ultra Thin Whitetopping ...cait.rutgers.edu/files/FHWA-NJ-2001-018.pdf · Development of a Design Guide for Ultra Thin Whitetopping (UTW) FINAL REPORT
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Development of a Design Guide for Ultra Thin Whitetopping (UTW)
FINAL REPORT November 1998
Submitted by
NJDOT Research Project Manager Mr. Nicholas Vitillo
FHWA NJ 2001-018
Nenad Gucunski Professor
In cooperation with
New Jersey Department of Transportation
Division of Research and Technology and
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
Center for Advanced Infrastructure & Transportation (CAIT) Civil & Environmental Engineering
Rutgers, The State University Piscataway, NJ 08854-8014
Disclaimer Statement
"The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who is (are) responsible for the facts and the
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the New Jersey Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute
a standard, specification, or regulation."
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the
information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no
liability for the contents or use thereof.
1. Report No. 2 . Gove rnmen t Access ion No .
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE
3. Rec ip ien t ’ s Ca ta log No .
5 . R e p o r t D a t e
8 . Per forming Organ izat ion Repor t No.
6. Per fo rming Organ iza t ion Code
4 . T i t le and Subt i t le
7 . Au thor (s )
9. Performing Organizat ion Name and Address 10 . Work Un i t No .
11 . Con t rac t o r Gran t No .
13 . Type o f Repor t and Pe r iod Cove red
14 . Sponsor ing Agency Code
12 . Sponsor ing Agency Name and Address
15. Supplement a r y No tes
16. Abs t r ac t
17. Key Words
19. S e c u r i t y C l a s s i f ( o f t h i s r e p o r t )
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-69)
20. Secu r i t y C lass i f . ( o f t h i s page )
18. D is t r i bu t ion S ta tement
21 . No o f Pages22. P r i c e
November 1998
CAIT/Rutgers
Final Report 03/06/1996 - 03/31/1999
FHWA 2001 - 018
New Jersey Department of Transportation CN 600 Trenton, NJ 08625
Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.
Concrete overlay of deteriorated asphalt pavements (whitetopping) has been a viable alternative to improve the pavement’s structural integrity for over six decades. The thickness of such overlay usually exceeds five inches. In the last few years, however, a newer technology has emerged which is commonly known as Ultra Thin Whitetopping (UTW). UTW is a construction technique, which involves placement of a thinner (than normal) thickness ranging from 2 to 4 inches. The application of UTW has been targeted to restore/rehabilitate deteriorated asphalt pavements with fatigue and/or rutting distress. Study of UTW was initiated by the construction of the first experimental project on an access road to a landfill in Louisville, Kentucky in 1991. This rather successful project was complemented by a series of experimental projects by many state and local agencies. There have been more than 170 UTW projects constructed from the early 1990’s and many investigators published papers/articles on the performance of these experimental projects. As a natural outcome of experimental observations, a need for a thorough and comprehensive (theoretical) understanding of UTW system is felt amongst researchers and experimentalists. In order to gain an insight into the contribution of the many variables in a UTW pavements system (i.e., thickness of UTW, AC and base layers; stiffness moduli of UTW, AC and base layers; size of UTW panels; UTW-AC interface; load transfer; etc.), there have been a few research endeavors. The intent of this research study is to identify and address important factors that contribute to the performance of the UTW pavement system. It is also the goal of this research to present an interim design procedure fine tuned by further observation of UTW pavement systems.
Development of a Design Guide for Ultra Thin Whitetopping (UTW)
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
1 L L I
This work was supported by the New Jersey Department of Transportation and New Jersey Concrete and Aggregate Association through the Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation of Rutgers University. The technical assistance and funding support by the organizations are gratefully acknowledged. SWK-Pavement Engineering, Princeton, New Jersey, was a subcontractor on the project, conducting field testing and developing the design procedure, and contributing to other phases of the project. In particular, appreciation is extended to Drs. Kaz Tabrizi and Vahid Ganji of SWK-PE for this effort. Special tharlks are extended to Mr. Nick Vitillo of NJDOT and Dr. Ali Maher of Rutgers University for their advice and effort in the development of the design guide.
5. Packard, R.G., “UTW Proves its Worth in Worldwide Tests,” Roads and Bridges,
July 1996, pp.15.
6. Armaghani, J.M., “Evaluation of Ultra-Thin Whitetopping in Florida,” Presented at
the 1997 TRB Conference, Washington D. C.
7. Draft “Development of Ultra-Thin Whitetopping Design Procedure,” Construction
Technology Laboratories, Inc., January 1997.
8. National Highway Institute, “Techniques For Pavement Rehabilitation,” US Dept. of
Transportation, FHWA, Sixth Edition, April 1997.
9. Pickett, G., Ray, G. K., “Influence Charts for Rigid Pavements,” Transactions, ASCE,
1951.
i 27
L a
L i L L L L L L L 1 1 L L L L
L I L
h.
APPENDIX A THE HEAVY (FALLING) WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER
The Heavy (Falling) Weight Deflectomaer (HWD) (Figure A I ) , is an apparatlls for k-situ, non-destructive testing of pavement structures. Traffic loading is emulated by applying load pulses in a controlled manner. Deflections of the pavement surface are recorded at increasing radial distances kom the load The deflection response is an indicator of structural capacity, material properties and pavement performance. Features of the IiWD include the following: . H
Up to 70 non-destructive tests can be completed per hour, each providing data comparable to that from trial pitting The load is representative of moving vehicles, resultmg in appropridte pavement response Can be used througho'ut the year, provided the unbound layers are in a unfibzen condition Suitable for t h ~ c k stiff pavements due to accurate deflection measurement in microns m
Type of Tesp . Deflection Basin Test to evaluate pavement material properties for -4sphalt Concrete (AC) and Pavement Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements JointICrack Perfomance Test to measure joindcrack load transfer efficiency an3 detect \loids
Defection Sensor Spacing
AC Pavements Deflection testing for AC pavements is performed on the outer wheel track. Se\-en deflection
sensors are spaced at radial &stances of typically 0, 12,24, 36.48, 60. and 72 inches (0; 305,610- 914, 1219, 1524, and 1829 mm as illustrated in Figure A2.
PCC Pavemews For testing of PCC pavements, the test setup used is similar to that adopted bv the StratePC
Highway Research P r o p a n ( S H R P ) Long Term Pavement Pedormance (LTPP) pro_- for evaluation of concrete pavements. Joint zest& is conducted by placing the load platen with a diameter of 300 mm ( I 1 .Slin) close to the slab corner with a deflection sensor on borb sides of the joint (or crack). Seven sensors deflection are spaced at radial distances of typically -12,O; 12,24, 36,60, and 72 inches (-305: 0, 305,610,914, 1-524, and 1,829 mm). Both "Approach Slab"md "Leave Slab" tests can be performed to evaluate rbc. jointlcrack performance (see Fi,ourz A?). Baski tests are also conducted lo euaimte the integity of the PCC slabs and to provide remedial d a i g if necessary.
28
L
L i L L L L i 1 1 1 L L L i L L I
pmcularly suitable for investigating a m<de range of pavement types at different construction stages. Typical pavements which can be tested include:
Conventional AC or PCC pavements Concrete Block Pavements on bound or unbound foundations Composite AC/PCC pavements Pavement with stabilized base Recycled pavements Pavement foundations and subbase layers Rail road track beds Airfield and dock pavements
_. Loading
The magnitude of the applied load is recorded. This can be adjusted by changing the mass ofthe fallmg weights or the height fiom which they are dropped, in order to obtain a contact pressure 011 the pavement surface whch approximates to the pressure exerted by the types of the vehicles using the pavement. For tughway pavement testing, the load levels applied are in the range 6,000 to 16,000 Ibs (26.7 to 71.2 kN). For airfield pavements, load levelsup to 55,000 Ibs (244.7 a-rr) can be applied.
D& Analysis
Using computer software, the deflection data is back-calculated to obtain the effective stifhess of each pavement layer including the subgrade. These in-situ effective stiffnesses are a fundamental measure of the engineering properties of the pavement materials. They are used either in isolation, or combined with other test data to:-
+ +
+ +
Assess the condition of each pavement layer to identifjr where deterioration has O C C L U T ~ .
Obtain a residual life of the pavement structure using bo~li arialytical and e q u i m l techniques Design and recommend strengthening or remedial measures to achie\Te the required future design life- Obtain mformation on the spacing of the primary transverse slnnkage cracks in a ccItleLll
stabilized bases Obtain information on load transfer and slab support adjacent to join= and crack in PcC pavements Measure the condition of the equivalent foundation supporting PCC pavements, enabling an assessment of residual life
+
+
29
I L
i
L L L i 1 L L 1 L i L i i i i
I L
L-
Wcrthcr rcrismr cable conocctioo box
Hmd
c r. -
Rubber pads (2 No carh r d c ) (for damping of fallmg wcigbl)
Typical Deflection Bowl
U’ Esoi, = A x (Pb/q)’
Figure Al: The Heavy (Falling) Weight Deflectometer
30
L
L
Direction of Movement i
L i
i L L L L
L . 1 c
Figure A2: XC Pavement Testing
Slab Center Testing
Direction of Movement
Approaching Joint Testing Leaving Joint Testing
,- Jointlcrack
Figure A3: PCC Pavement Testing
L i L
I
I L
31
L
i L L L L 1 L L L L L L L L L L L L I
APPENDIX B
9 New Jersey Concrete and Aggregate Association I230 Parkway Avenue Suite I01 *,West Trent011 New /ersey 08628 (609) 771 -01
FAX (609) 771 - I 7
William J. Cleary, C.A.E. Executive Director
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ULTRA THIN CONCRETE OVERLAY
SPECIFICATIONS .I
DESCRIPTION:
Ths work shall consist of the placement of a special Portland Cement Concrete Surface Course, containing a number 8 size coarse aggregate, over an existing cleaned and milled flexible pavement.
MATERIALS:
Materials used in this construction shall meet the following requirements:
Materials Reauirements Portland Cement 919.11 Water 919.15 Aggregates 901.13 Air Entraining Admixture 905.01 ASTM C-494 Type F High Range Water Reducer 905.02 Synthetic Fibers ASTM C 1116
Synthetic fibers shall be added at the plant at a rate of three (3) pounds per cubic yard. At the direction of the engineer, Type F high range water reducing (HRWR) admixture may be used. However, the slump, achieved with water, shall not exceed three (3) inches before the HRWR admixture is added to the mix. The HRWR admixture is added to the mix at the plant to increase the desired workability during placement. Type A and Type D water reducers are prohibited because their combination with Type F water reducers cause undesired retardation. Admixtures shall be incorporated into the concrete mix in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, at the direction of the engineer. Only one addition of HRWR will be permitted at the jobsite, unless otherwise approved by the engineer.
32
1 i
L L L L L L 1 L L L L L 1 L L L 1
PROPORTIONING:
The contractor shall hrnish a mix design in accordance with section 914.02(b) ’Proportioning and Verification and meeting the following requirements:
Compressive Strength - NOTE (I)] psi at 24 hours BOTE (I)] psi at 28 days
NOTE (1) - to be determined by Design for each project
Air Content: 5.5 - 8.5% Water - Cement Ratio: 0.33 minimum, 0.38 maximum
EOUIPMENT:
Equipment shall conform to the requirements of section 405.03.
SURFACE PREPARATION: The existing asphalt surface shall be milled and cleaned in accordance with sectioj 202.09 Milling of Bituminous Concrete to the required depth WOTE (2)] and all edges should be cut vertical and square. This clean, open milled surface will provide a positive bond for the portland cement concrete overlay. The milled out area shall be replaced with a minimum of 3” of Ultra Thin Portland Cement Concrete. No bonding agents or slurries are required.
NOTE (2) - To be determined by design for each project, and at no time shall the remaining flexible pavement be less than 2 inches thick.
PLACING CONCRETE: The placement of portland cement concrete shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of section 405.10 Placing Concrete.
CONCRETE FINISHING:
The striking off and finishing of portland cement concrete shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of sections 405.1 1 Initial Strike Off of Concrete and 405.13 Final Strike Off, Consolidation, and Finishing.
JOINTS: Joints shall be constructed in accordance with section 405.12 Joints, and with the following: Control joints shall be cut with a special saw that is designed to cut concrete at or near the initial set. Sawing shall begin as soon as the concrete can be walked upon. These joints shall be a minimum 314” depth and 118’’ width. Sawed control1 joints do not need to be sealed. Construction joints may be placed at the option of the contractor. Spacing of the joints shall be as specified on the plans. Where isolation joints are required, 1/4” minimum felt material shall be placed around all structures such as manholes, inlets, curbing, etc.
CURING:
White pigmented curing compound shall be applied according to, section 405.14 Curing, and the manufacturer’s recommendations, immediately aRer the last finishing operation. When temperatures are expected to drop below freezing, heat retention curing such as insulating blankets, should be used.
i 33
r-- I I I r- i- I r-- r- r- I I- I I r- I r- r-
Station Normalised Deflections Joint Transfer Pavement Layer Stiffnesses Criteria Stress d l I d2 I d3 I d4 I d5 I d6 Id7 dl-d2 I d2ldl E l I E2 I E3 I E4 I E5 I E6 I E7 I E8
-- ( M W (microns) I % ( M W
W c
4,1
APPENDIK c
*
Back Analysed Deflection Data From HWD
4 (feet) Slabs
,
Station Normalised Deflections
Statistical Analvsis of 3 lfeetl Slabs
Joint Transfer Pavement Layer Stiffnesses Criteria Stress (MPa)
Statistical Analysis of 4 (feet) Slabs
d l I d2 I d3 I d4 I d5 I d6 Id7 dl-d2 d2/dl E l I E2 I E3 I E4 I E5 I E6 I E7 I E8 (microns) % ( M W
Sfation Criteria Normalised Deflections Joint Transfer Pavement Layer Stiffnesses Stress d l ( d21 d3 I d 4 ) d5 ld6 Id7 dl-d2 I d21dl E l ( E21 E 3 ( E4 I E5 I E6 [ E7 I E8
(MP4 (microns) 1 % ( M W
APPENDIX E I
L TIE DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER
1
L L
L
L I L
L
The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) is a very robust instrument designed for rapid in-situ measurement of the structural properties of existing road pavements constructed with unbound materials. Continuous measurements can be made down to a depth of 800mm. or further when an extension is fitted. Where pavement layers have different strengths the boundaries can be identified and the thickness of the layers determined. A typical test takes only a few minutes and the instrument therefore provides a very efficient method of obtaining information which would normally require trial pits.
Correlations have been established between measuremen& with the DCP and California Bearing Ratlo (CBR) so that results can be interpreted and compared with CBR specifications for pavement design. Agreement is generally good over most of the range but differences are apparent at low values of CBR, especially for fine grained materials.
The design of the DCP which has been adopted by the Transport Research Laboratory is similar to that described by Kleyn, Maree and Savage (1982) and incorporates an 8kg weight dropping through a height of 575mm and a 60°C cone having a diameter of 2 0 m . In total it weighs 20kg approx.
The DCP needs two operators, one to hold the instrument, one to raise and drop the weight. The instrument is held vertically and the weight carefully raised to the handle limit and then allowed to free fall onto the anvil.
It is recommended that a reading should be taken at increments of penetration of about 1Omm. However, it is usually easier to take a scale reading after a set number of blows. It is therefore necessary to change the number of blows between readings according to the strength of the layer being penetrated. For good quality granular bases, readings every 5 or 10 blows are satisfactory, but for weaker sub-base layers and subgrades, readings every 1 or 2 blows may be appropriate.
REFERENCE
Kleyn EG, Maree JH and Savage DF (1982), "The application of the pavement DCP to determine the bearing properties and performance of road pavements", Proc. Int. Symp. Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Trondheirn, Norway.
L
I i
L
L
I L
L L L L L L L I ' L L i L 1 L L L
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP)
Rule
60"
I Drop 575mm
Hole
41
L
L i L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
I 1 I DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) - I I PENETRATION v ACCUMULATED BLOWS 1 1 1
h
E E z 0 i= a a I- w z w
v
a
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50
ACCUMULATED BLOWS
42
r - r r r r r r r r r r r - r r r r r r r -
Depth below Ground Surface (mrn) 4
N 0 0
.A
A 0 0 2 iD 0
0 0 0 0 0
LJ n 0 0
0
0
N 0
w 0
b 0
UI 0
A
b 0 0
A
N 0 0
Depth below Ground Surface (rnm) 2 to &l h
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
N 0 0 0
- P 0 0
- N
0 0
Depth below Ground Surface (rnrn)
- A 0 0 & b 0
0 0 0 0 0
N
0 0 0
0 0 71 -I
v) -i 50 rn v, c I- -i v ) .
m
..
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
, l I
L i
L L
n LL 0
a
.
I
E 1- 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ,r, 0 0 0 0 0 p.' 7 ? 9' o c ,
.
r . 1 I
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
(D - 'f .- N - 0 4) - N P Y (UIUI) aseuns punoJ3 Molaq qidaa
I . * , . . . \ ....-.. "^ ^.._
45
0 0 c.l - 0 0
5 - 0 0 u) -
L
L
L L
L L L L L L ,.
L
I I L
APPENDIX F
Ca I if0'i.n ia Bearing Ratio DCP Test at Station 3.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10 CBR
100
46
!
L-
L L L L
i i
- a, M a s Y
Q
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
California Bearing katio DCP Test at Station 4.11
10 I00
47
.@ co
P 0
Depth Below Surface (inches)
ch) 0
N cn N 0
A * A 01 0 0
APPENDIX G
Maximum tensile stress in UTW P (Ib) p (psi) a (in) E A (psi) c (in) E, (psi) p K (pci) Eq. 4.7 in Text CTL Load Test' 5000 43 3.1 1,740,000 3.7 3,400,000 0.150 250 40 43
Maximum tensile stress in UTW Maximum tensile stress in AC P (Ib) p (psi) a (in) € A (psi) c (in) E, (psi) p K (pci) Eq. 4.7 in Text Finite Element Eq. 4.7 in Text Finite Element 9000 65 4 1666666 3 3400000 0.15 289 39 45 150 147 9000 65 4 1666666 4 3400000 0.15 289 44 41 118 120 9000 65 4 1666666 5 3400000 0.15 289 44 45 95 96 9000 65 6 1666666 3 3400000 0.15 289 37 36 99 100 9000 65 6 1666666 4 3400000 0.15 289 36 34 82 83 9000 65 6 1666666 5 3400000 0.15 289 34 32 69 68 9000 65 8 1666666 3 3400000 0.15 289 31 31 70 71 9000 65 8 1666666 4 3400000 0.15 289 29 30 60 60 9000 65 8 1666666 5 3400000 0.15 289 27 29 51 50