Culmtododediseosedebeutilizar

paraunaaplicacinespecfica
TALLERDEDISEODE
PAVIMENTOSDECONCRETO
RobertRodden,P.E.
SeniorDirectorofPavementTechnology
AmericanConcretePavementAssociation

Design for What?

Different cement-based materials
Jointed- or continuously-reinforced
Roller-compacted concrete (RCC)
Pervious concrete
Composite pavements

Different applications/traffic
Aircraft loading
Industrial loading
Other odd loading
Short joint spacing

How Did We Get to Jointed

Plain Being the Norm for
Over-the-Road Traffic?

Design Challenge | Solution

Horseshoes/Steel Wheels & Mud | Concrete

Early Concrete Pavement Details

The first concrete
pavements/slabs were:
6 (150 mm) thick no
structural design because
focus was rut prevention
6-8 ft (1.8-2.4 m) squares
based on mixer capacity
yes, joint spacing was
dictated by mixer capacity!
No crack control joints or
dowels/steel

Design Challenge | Solution

Speed of Vehicles Increases so People Notice Joint
Roughness & Want to Maximize Production to Minimize
Cost | Minimize Construction Joints
less

and more

Advances Brought New Challenges

More efficient equipment
and placement methods
were soon developed
Slabs got longer

The public wanted 2-lane

roadways for safety
Slabs got wider

both of these lead

to new challenges

First mile of PCCP

(1909)

Concrete Wants to Shrink

Hydration Uses Water

Hot then Cold

HOT AT SET

COOLED OFF
Thermal Shrinkage
Drying Shrinkage

Chemical
Shrinkage

Shrinkage + Restraint = CRACKS!?!

HOT AT SET, HIGH MOISTURE, UNHYDRATED CEMENT
If no restraint
COOL, DRY, HYDRATED CEMENT
TEFLON | No Friction/Restraint
With restraint

Subgrade/Subbase | Restraint

Design Challenge | Solution

Shrinkage Cracking | Thicken CL; Let It Crack Transversely

40-80 ft

15-20 ft

(12-24m)

(4.6-6.1 m)

Design Challenge | Solution

Crack Opening | Reinforce to Hold Crack Tightly
Plan
Steel: 0.06-0.25%
Joints: 40-100 ft (12-30 m)
Cracks: 15-20 ft (4.6-6.1 m)

Profile

THE BIRTH OF Jointed Reinforced Concrete

Pavement - JRCP (1913 or Earlier)

Design Challenge | Solution

Crack Maintenance | Create Straight Transverse Joints
Plan
14-20 ft
(4.3-6.1 m)

Profile

Design Challenge | Solution

Construction Joint Faulting/Chipping | Dowel Joints
JPCP Profile

THE BIRTH OF DOWELED Jointed Plain

Concrete Pavement - JPCP (1917)

JRCP Profile

Upon Contraction, No Room for Fines

Shorten Joint Spacing

Upon Re-Expansion, Blowup

Incompressible Enter Joints

In the Winter Slabs Contract

Upon Construction

Long Panels = Higher Risk of Blowups

Blowup
Risk

JRCP w/
80-100 ft joints
(24-30 m)

High

JPCP w/
40-80 ft joints
(12-24 m)
JRCP w/
<40 ft joints
(<12 m)

JPCP w/
15-25 ft joints
(4.6-7.6 m)

Low

Design Challenge | Solution

Blowup | Include Expansion Joint if JRCP or long JPCP

Design Challenge | Solution

Crack Faulting | Reinforce MORE to Hold Crack Tightly
Plan
Steel: 0.6-0.85%
Cracks: 2-6 ft (0.6-1.8 m)

Profile
THE BIRTH OF Continuously Reinforced
Concrete Pavement - CRCP (1923)

WWII + TRAFFIC = Faulting of Undoweled

Design Challenge | Solution

Pumping/Faulting | Add a Subbase

The Jointing Dilemma Continued

During WWII (1939-1945), Bureau of Public Roads
encouraged steel-free designs to free up steel for the war
effort. So the norm became undoweled JPCP with expansion
joints at 105-120 ft (32-37 m), which had contraction joints
open and poor performance. These pavements were
relatively free of cracking, spalling and blowups, but the
faulting was serious.
After WWII, typically either undoweled JPCP with short joints
and no expansion joints or long jointed JRCP with
contraction/expansion joints at 50 to 100 ft (15 to 30 m).

and Continued
In the 1940s the US Bureau of Public Roads did a study
on expansion joints
Showed that they progressively close over the years, causing
greater openings at nearby contraction joints and resulting in
loss of aggregate interlock and sealant failure.
Showed that expansion joints are not necessary unless
contraction joints spaced at greater than 60 ft (18 m),
aggregates are expansive, or temp during construction is near
freezing.

10

We Even Tried a Hinge Joint Design

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/hpcp/hpcp05.cfm

The Three Traditional Types

Design Challenge

JPCP

JRCP

CRCP

Transverse Joint Spacing

14-20 ft (4.3-6.1 m)

22-100+ ft (6.7-30 m)

N/A

Transverse Crack Spacing

N/A

15-20 ft (4.6-6.1 m)

2-6 ft (0.6-1.8 m)

Rut-Resistant Surface

Yes

Yes

Yes

Shrinkage Accounted for by

Jointing

Cracking

Cracking

Reinforcing

N/A

0.06 0.25%

0.6-0.85%

Expansion Joints Used

No

Sometimes

Maybe

Tiebars Used in Long Joints

Yes

Yes

Yes

Longitudinal Joint Spacing

12-14 ft (3.7-4.3 m)

12-14 ft (3.7-4.3 m)

12-14 ft (3.7-4.3 m)

Trying to Minimize the Number

of Man-Made Joints WHY?

YES

YES

YES

AASHTO 62-93 Design

Yes

Yes

Yes

AASHTO DARWin-ME Design

Yes

NO

Yes

11

For Over-the-Road JPCP Design

Most PCCP in the US is JPCP

0%
Arizona
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
NorthCarolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
SouthCarolina
SouthDakota
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
Washington
WestVirginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%
JPCP
JRCP
CRCP

Joints are not the

problem; cracks are!

Source: Brett Trautman, MoDOT, Striving for Long-Life

Concrete Pavements Missouris Direction

12

Guidance on CRCP Design

FHWA & CRSI initiative: http://www.crcpavement.org/
AASHTO 93 or ME can design
Several state agencies have
their own custom design
IL custom ME design
TX TSLAB86

Roller-Compacted Concrete
(RCC) Thickness Design

13

RCC Thickness Design

RCC-Pave available from PCA:
http://www.cement.org/bookstore/profile.asp?id=2309
Same core as ACPA AirPave / PCAs AIRPORT
Unlimited fatigue when stress ratio 0.50; no faulting / IRI models

Some suggest using StreetPave

ACPA does not support this

ACPA working on new RCC fatigue

models right now
RCC design currently like the Wild West

RCC Fatigue

14

Pervious Concrete
Thickness Design

Reasons for ACPAs PerviousPave

Several hydrological design methods exist
No universal structural design method before PerviousPave
some used Westergaard solutions
some suggested to use StreetPave recommended in at least
two widely-circulated resources/journals
Delattes TRB 2007 Paper:
The author investigated
adaptation of ACPA
StreetPave software

15

From StreetPave to PerviousPave

Key changes :
Exclusion of erosion
Different design variables
maximum strength and
correlation to modulus
no dowel bars
traffic distribution defaults
allowable subgrades/subbases

Inclusion of hydrological design

acpa.org/PerviousPave

Composite Pavement
Thickness Design:
Asphalt on Concrete

16

Asphalt on Concrete Composite

Some consider renewable surface
Asphalt surface might provide
thermal benefits that ultimately
reduce concrete slab curling which
then extends performance
NCHRP Report S2-R21-RR-2
from July 2013:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
shrp2/SHRP2_S2-R21-RR-2.pdf
MEPDG-based design

Composite Pavement
Thickness Design:
Concrete on Concrete

17

Concrete on Concrete Composite

Wet-on-wet concrete placement
that might provide structural,
cost, sustainability, performance,
etc. benefit(s)
NCHRP Report S2-R21-RR-3
from July 2013:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs
/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-R21-RR-3.pdf
MEPDG-based design in this report
but other design methods might
also be valid, depending on setup

Boeing 777-200ER
Gear Spacing 84 feet 11 inches
Equates to 3.4 California Profilograph lengths

Image Courtesy Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company

Aircraft Loading

18

Aircraft Loading
One aircraft wheel load can easily exceed the total gross
weight of many vehicles, including semi-tractor trailers
Aircraft wheel loads are approaching 65,000 lb (29,500 kg)
and tire pressures exceed 200 psi (1.4 MPa)

Tri-Services (Army, Air Force, Navy)

PCASE = PavementTransportation
Computer Assisted
Structural
Engineering
US Army Corps of
Engineers product
https://transportation.
wes.army.mil/pcase

19

ACPAs AirPave
AirPave is based on calculated
pavement responses (mechanics
independent of climate)
Developed as an update to PCAs
AIRPORT, originally developed by
Bob Packard
Design is strictly mechanistic and
limit stress ratio; no faulting / IRI
acpa.org/AirPave
Now it is more of an analysis tool

FAARField
FAA standard for
airfield pavement
design
Rigid pavement
design based on
3D finite element
analyses
http://www.faa.gov/
airports/engineering
/design_software/

20

Industrial Loading

Industrial Loading
Design Method

Over-the-Road
Trucks

AASHTO 93 / ACPA WinPAS

AASHTOWare Pavement ME

ACI 330.X (non-software)

ACPA AirPave
ACPA IndustrialPave (SOON!)

ACPA StreetPave

EverFE
TCPavements OptiPave

Industrial
Vehicles

Distributed
Loads

Concentrated
Loads

NOTE: ACI 330.X uses ACPAs StreetPave in its Over-the-Road Trucks design
tables and ACPAs AirPave in its Industrial Vehicles design tables; the document
also mentions OptiPave and both AASHTO software

21

IndustrialPave
Beta almost complete
Includes:
Over-the-Road Trucks based on StreetPave
Industrial Vehicles based on AirPave
Distributed Loads based on AirPave
Concentrated Loads based on ACI 318 equations

Thinking about including RCC design in the software

Other Odd Loading

22

Other Odd Loading

Of course can use Westergaard or AirPave
Best bet is usually to turn to some finite element analysis

EverFE
FREE!!!!
3D user-friendly FEA software
Based on calculated pavement
responses (mechanics
independent of climate)
Focus is ???
Design is strictly mechanistic
http://www.civil.umaine.edu/everfe/

23

EverFE is Very Powerful!

Dowel alignment, joint spacing / layout effects, etc.

PCA is Working on a
Layered-Elastic Design

24

Thank you.
Questions? FEEDBACK!
Robert Rodden, P.E.
Senior Director of Pavement Technology
American Concrete Pavement Association
rrodden@acpa.org | 847.423.8706
Main Website | acpa.org
Concrete Wiki | wiki.acpa.org
App Library | apps.acpa.org
Desktop Software | software.acpa.org
Resources | resources.acpa.org
On-Demand Training | ondemand.acpa.org
Live Online Training | webinars.acpa.org
Your Local Contact | local.acpa.org

25