<%BANNER%>

Evaluation of Long-Life Concrete Pavements in the State of Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044782/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Long-Life Concrete Pavements in the State of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (160 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Verdugo, Cesar D
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: base -- cement -- concrete -- cte -- drainage -- drip -- elasticity -- flexural -- flow -- infiltration -- long-life -- mepdg -- pavement -- pcc -- permeability -- portland -- slab -- steady -- thickness
Civil and Coastal Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Civil Engineering thesis, M.E.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: A research study was conducted to develop long-life concrete pavement designs with expected service life of over 50 years suitable for use in Florida. Two typical concrete pavement designs used in Florida were evaluated using the MEPDG program to see if they could be used for long-life concrete pavements in Florida.  The MEPDG program used was calibrated for the Florida conditions.  It was found that these two designs could be used as long-life pavements if the slab thickness was adequate and the concrete properties were right – low elastic modulus, low coefficient of thermal expansion and adequate flexural strength.  The concrete with the right properties could be produced if it was made with the right aggregate.  Among the three aggregates considered, Brooksville limestone was found to produce the best concrete for this application. DRIP 2.0 software was used to evaluate the drainage conditions for the two pavement designs, which were designated as Type I and Type II designs in this study.  The effects of pavement cross slope, number of lanes, base permeability, infiltration rate and effective porosity were studied. Drainage analyses showed that increasing the slope and permeability of the designs would allow the drainage system to work better, as well as, reduce the time-to-drain required.  The required combinations of these parameters for satisfactory drainage performance were determined.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Cesar D Verdugo.
Thesis: Thesis (M.E.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Tia, Mang.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044782:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044782/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Long-Life Concrete Pavements in the State of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (160 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Verdugo, Cesar D
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: base -- cement -- concrete -- cte -- drainage -- drip -- elasticity -- flexural -- flow -- infiltration -- long-life -- mepdg -- pavement -- pcc -- permeability -- portland -- slab -- steady -- thickness
Civil and Coastal Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Civil Engineering thesis, M.E.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: A research study was conducted to develop long-life concrete pavement designs with expected service life of over 50 years suitable for use in Florida. Two typical concrete pavement designs used in Florida were evaluated using the MEPDG program to see if they could be used for long-life concrete pavements in Florida.  The MEPDG program used was calibrated for the Florida conditions.  It was found that these two designs could be used as long-life pavements if the slab thickness was adequate and the concrete properties were right – low elastic modulus, low coefficient of thermal expansion and adequate flexural strength.  The concrete with the right properties could be produced if it was made with the right aggregate.  Among the three aggregates considered, Brooksville limestone was found to produce the best concrete for this application. DRIP 2.0 software was used to evaluate the drainage conditions for the two pavement designs, which were designated as Type I and Type II designs in this study.  The effects of pavement cross slope, number of lanes, base permeability, infiltration rate and effective porosity were studied. Drainage analyses showed that increasing the slope and permeability of the designs would allow the drainage system to work better, as well as, reduce the time-to-drain required.  The required combinations of these parameters for satisfactory drainage performance were determined.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Cesar D Verdugo.
Thesis: Thesis (M.E.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Tia, Mang.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044782:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EVALUATION OF LONG LIFE CONCRETE PAVEMENTS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA By CESAR DAVID VERDUGO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Cesar David Verdugo

PAGE 3

3 To my parents, grand parents, brother and girlfriend

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I extend a special acknowledgement to Dr. Mang Tia who served as my graduate advisor and chairman of my supervisory committee. He guided me and provided fundamental support through the various stages of this project. His counsel was unparalleled. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Reynaldo Roque for serving as part of my supervisory committee. His teachings in class were essential for the development of this project. I would like to thank the Florida Department of Transportation for providing the financial support to make this research possible. Thanks are extended to Mr. Abdenour Nazef at the Materials Office at FDOT in Gainesville, who worked to provide me with valuable data and information. I would like to thank all my colleagues who assisted me in this research, especially Michael Bekoe, Patrick Bekoe and Ohhoon Kwon. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Mr. Cesar Verdugo and Mrs. Patricia Tamayo. I thank m y grandparents, here and in heaven, Mr. Jaime Tamayo; Mr. Julio Cesar Verdugo; Mrs. Dora Maldonado and Mrs. Rosario Torres. I extend thanks to m y brother, Mr. D aniel Verdugo and my girlfriend Ms. Laura Browning. Without their help and moral support, this project would not have been possible.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS P age ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 16 Goals and Objectives ................................ ................................ .............................. 17 Research Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ 17 2 SELECTED CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGNS ................................ .................. 19 Two Typical Florida Concrete Pavement Designs ................................ .................. 19 MEPDG Model for Evaluation of Design Life ................................ .......................... 19 3 MEPDG INPUTS AND FLORIDA CALIBRATION ................................ ................... 22 Multi Level Input Approach ................................ ................................ ..................... 22 Computational Methodology ................................ ................................ ................... 23 Design Life ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 23 Joint Design and Edge Support ................................ ................................ .............. 24 Climatic Parameters ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 MEPDG Rigid Pavement Performance Prediction Equations ................................ 25 Transverse Cracking ................................ ................................ ........................ 25 Faulting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 28 International Roughness Index (IRI) ................................ ................................ 33 Standard Error Calculations ................................ ................................ ............. 35 Criteria and Reliability Levels ................................ ................................ .................. 36 Traffic Inputs ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 37 4 MATERIAL PAR AMETERS USED FOR MEPDG ANALYSIS ................................ 43 Concrete Mix Properties ................................ ................................ ......................... 43 Type I ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 43 Granular Permeable Base ................................ ................................ ................ 43 Asph alt Concrete ................................ ................................ .............................. 44 Type B (LBR 40) ................................ ................................ ............................... 44 Select A 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 44

PAGE 6

6 Type II ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 45 Granular Permeable B ase ................................ ................................ ................ 45 Select A 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 45 5 EVALUATION OF PCC AGGREGATE ON PAVEMENT DISTRESS ..................... 4 8 Florida Concrete Aggregates ................................ ................................ .................. 48 Unit weights ................................ ................................ ............................... 48 Coefficients of thermal expansion ................................ .............................. 48 Modulus of rupture and elasticity ................................ ............................... 49 Effects of Concrete Aggregate Type (Type I) ................................ .......................... 49 Brooksville Aggregate ................................ ................................ ...................... 49 Calera Aggregate ................................ ................................ ............................. 49 River Gravel Aggregate ................................ ................................ .................... 50 Effects of Concrete Aggregate Type (Type II) ................................ ......................... 50 Brooksville Aggregate ................................ ................................ ...................... 50 Calera Aggregate ................................ ................................ ............................. 50 River Gravel Aggregate ................................ ................................ .................... 51 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ .............................. 51 6 EVALUATION OF MODULUS OF RUPTURE EFFECT ON PAVEMENT DISTRESS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 55 Modulus of Rupture ................................ ................................ ................................ 55 Type I ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 55 Type II ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 56 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ .............................. 56 Type I ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 56 Type II ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 56 7 EFFECTS OF BASE TYPE ON PAVEMENT DISTRESS ................................ ....... 59 Type I ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 59 Type II ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 60 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ .............................. 60 Type I ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 61 Type II ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 62 8 EVALUATION OF PAVEMENT DISTRESS CAUSED BY INCREMENTAL AADTT TRAFFIC ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 69 Type I ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 69 Type II ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 69 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ .............................. 69 Type I ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 70 Type II ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 70 9 CURRENT STATE OF DRAINAGE APPLICATIONS ................................ ............. 74

PAGE 7

7 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 74 Permeable Bases ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 75 10 PARAMETERS USED FOR DRIP 2.0 ANALYSES ................................ ................ 79 Water Infiltration ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 79 Groundwater ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 79 Roadway Geometry ................................ ................................ ................................ 80 Coefficient of Permeability ................................ ................................ ...................... 81 Porosity ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 82 Computation of Infiltrated Water ................................ ................................ ............. 83 Crack Infiltration Method ................................ ................................ ......................... 84 De sign of Permeable Base ................................ ................................ ..................... 85 Steady Flow ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 85 Time to Drain ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 86 Materials Requirement for Permeable Base ................................ ........................... 87 11 EVALUATION OF STEADY FLOW DRAINAGE ANALYSIS ................................ .. 91 Type I ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 91 Type II ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 91 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ .............................. 91 Type I ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 92 Type II ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 93 12 EVALUATION OF TIME TO DRAIN ANALYSIS ................................ ................... 104 Type I ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 104 Type II ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 104 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ............................ 105 Type I ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 105 Type II ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 106 13 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 116 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 116 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................ ................................ .... 117 Recommendations for Further Research ................................ .............................. 117 APPENDIX A LITERATURE REVIEW ON LONG LIFE CONCRETE PAVEMENTS .................. 121 Long Life Concrete Pavement Design Practices by Illino is DOT .......................... 121 Long Life Concrete Pavement Design Practices by Minnesota DOT .................... 123 Long Life Concrete Pavement Design Practices by Texas DOT .......................... 124 Long Life Concrete Pavement Design Practices by Washington State DOT ........ 124 Other Examples of Long Lif e Concrete Pavements ................................ .............. 126

PAGE 8

8 Highway 41, Mlltal, Austria ( Pichler, 2006) ................................ .................... 126 Superior St 2 nd St, Webster, Iowa (Cable et al., 2004). ................................ 127 Highway 427, Toronto, Canada (PIARC, 2009) ................................ ............ 128 B47 Highway, Germany (U.S. TECH, 1992) ................................ ................... 130 Avenue de Lorraine, Belgium (Gilles and Jasienski, 2004) ............................ 132 A1 Highway, Austria (Hall et al., 2007) ................................ .......................... 133 A6 Freeway, Paris, France (U.S. TECH, 1992) ................................ ............. 135 Airport Ring Road, Clay, Iowa ( Cable et al., 2004) ................................ ............ 137 B FDOT GIS AADTT DATA (TOP 300) ................................ ................................ .... 138 C INPUT PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS OF TYPE I DESIGN USING MEPDG ... 152 D INPUT PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS OF TYPE II DESIGN USING MEPDG .. 155 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 157 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 160

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table P age 2 1 Two Adjusted Typical Concrete Pavement Designs used by FDOT. Compiled from a report by the FDOT. ................................ ................................ ................ 20 3 1 Monthly Traffic Volume Adjustment Factors Selected for Analysis. .................... 39 3 2 Vehicle C lass Distribution by Vehicle Class ................................ ....................... 40 3 3 Hourly Traffic Distribution by Period ................................ ................................ ... 40 3 4 Traffic Growth Factor Model used for Analysis. ................................ ................. 41 3 5 Number of Axles per Truck used for Analysis. ................................ .................... 41 3 6 Wheelbase Truck Tractor Factors used for Analysis. ................................ ......... 41 4 1 Gradation and Plasticity Index Inputs for Permeable Aggregate ........................ 46 4 2 Sieve Analysis for Permeable Aggregate used in Analysis. ............................... 46 4 3 Gradation and Plasticity Inputs for LBR 40 used in Analysis. ............................. 47 4 4 Sieve Analysis for LBR 40 used in Analysis. ................................ ...................... 47 5 1 Typical Unit Weights of Florida Concre tes. ................................ ......................... 52 5 2 Typical Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Florida Concretes. ........................ 52 5 3 Elastic Modulus of Concretes made with Different Aggregates. ......................... 52 5 4 Predicted Distress of Type I Concrete Pavement Using Brooksville Aggregate. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 52 5 5 Predicted Distress of Type I Concrete Pavement Using Calera Aggregate. ....... 52 5 6 Predicted Distress of Type I Concrete Pavement Using River Gravel. ............... 53 5 7 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete Pavement Using Brooksville Aggregate. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 53 5 8 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete Pavement Using Calera Aggregate. ...... 53 5 9 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete Pavement Using River Gravel. .............. 53 5 10 Predicted Distresses of Passing Concrete Pavements. ................................ ...... 54

PAGE 10

10 6 1 Predicted Distresses of Type I Concrete Pavement with Different Modulus of Rupture. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 57 6 2 Predicted Distresses of Type II Concrete Pavement with Different Modulus of Rupture. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 58 7 1 Predicted Distress of Type I Concrete with a 4 inch Base Layer. ....................... 63 7 2 Predicted Distress of Type I Concrete with a 6 inch Base Layer. ....................... 64 7 3 Predicted Distress of Ty pe I Concrete with an 8 inch Base Layer. ..................... 65 7 4 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete with a 6 inch Base Layer. ...................... 66 7 5 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete with an 8 inch Base Layer ..................... 67 7 6 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete with a 10 inch Base Layer. .................... 68 8 1 Results of M EPDG Traffic Analysis on Type I Design. ................................ ....... 71 8 2 Results of MEPDG Traffic Analysis on Type II Design. ................................ ...... 72 8 3 FDOT GIS Data Showing Test Roads with Highest AADTT in Florida .............. 73 9 1 Minimum Permeability Requirements for Unbound Base ................................ ... 77 10 1 Water Loss Values Used in DRIP (Expressed in Percentages). ......................... 88 10 2 Typical Unstabilized Permeable Base Gradation. ................................ ............... 88 11 1 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type I Design Using 4 Lanes and 4% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 95 11 2 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type I Design Using 3 Lanes and 4% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 96 11 3 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type I Design Using 2 Lanes and 4% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 97 11 4 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type I Design Using 3 Lanes and 5% Slope ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 98 11 5 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type I Design Using 3 Lanes and 6% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 99 11 6 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type II Design Using 4 Lanes and 4% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 100

PAGE 11

11 11 7 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 4% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 101 11 8 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type II Design Using 2 Lanes and 4% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 101 11 9 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 5% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 102 11 10 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 6% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 102 11 11 General Results and Trends of Steady Flow Drainage Analysis. ..................... 103 12 1 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 4 Lanes and 4% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 108 12 2 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 4 Lanes and 5% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 108 12 3 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 4 Lanes and 6% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 109 12 4 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 3 Lanes and 4% Slo pe. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 109 12 5 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 3 Lanes and 5% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 110 12 6 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 3 Lanes and 6% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 110 12 7 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 2 Lanes and 4% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 111 12 8 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 2 lanes and 5% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 111 12 9 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 2 Lanes and 6% Slope ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 111 12 10 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 4 Lanes and 4% Slope ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 112 12 11 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 4 Lanes and 5% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 112 12 12 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 4 Lanes and 6% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 113

PAGE 12

12 12 13 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 4% Slope ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 113 12 14 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 5% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 113 12 15 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 6% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 114 12 16 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 2 Lanes and 4% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 114 12 17 Re sults of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 2 Lanes and 5% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 114 12 18 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Typ e II Design Using 2 Lanes and 6% Slope. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 114 12 19 General Results and Trends of Time to Drain Drainage Analysis. ................... 115 13 1 Required Permeability of Base Material for Type I Design. .............................. 119 13 2 Required Permeability of Base Material for Type II Design. ............................. 119

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure P age 2 1 Two adjusted FDOT concrete pavement designs selected for analysis. ............ 21 3 1 Six weather stations used to provide climatic input for analysis. (Oh, Fernando & Ryu, 2008) ................................ ................................ ...................... 42 9 1 Drainable pavement system (FHWA, 1992). ................................ ...................... 78 10 1 Plan and sectional view of a concrete pavement (FHWA, 1992). ....................... 89 10 2 Time to drain chart showing relationship between time factor and degree of drainage (Mallela et. al., 2002). ................................ ................................ .......... 90 13 1 Proposed long life concrete pavement designs suitable for Florida. ................. 120

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering EVALUATION OF LONG LIFE CONCRETE PAVEMENTS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA By Cesar David Verdugo August 2012 Chair: Mang Tia Major: Civil Engineering A research study was conducted to develop long life concrete pavement designs with expected service life of over 50 years suitable for use in Florida. Two typ ical concrete pavement designs used in Florida were evaluated using the MEPDG program to see if they could be used for long life concrete pavements in Florida. The MEPDG program used was calibrated for the Florida conditions. It was found that these two designs could be used as long life pavements if the slab thickness was adequate and the concrete properties were right low elastic modulus, low coefficient of thermal expansion and adequate flexural strength. The concrete with the right properties could be produced if it was made with the right aggregate. Among the three aggregates considered, Brooksville limestone was found to produce the best concrete for this application. DRIP 2.0 software was used to evaluate the drainage conditions for the two pave ment designs, which were designated as Type I and Type II designs in this study. The effects of pavement cross slope, number of lanes, base permeability, infiltration rate and effective porosity were studied. Drainage analyses showed that increasing the s lope and permeability of the designs would allow the drainage system to work better,

PAGE 15

15 as well as, reduce the time to drain required. The required combinations of these parameters for satisfactory drainage performance were determined.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background In Florida, asphalt pavements usually have a service life of 12 to 20 years before rehabilitation work needs to be done on them, while concrete pavements are typically designed for a design life of 20 years. With the increase in traffic volume on our roadways today and the cost associated with traffic delay due to the needed rehabilitation work, it makes good sense for FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) to consider the alternative of designing and constructing pavements with a design life of 50 years or more for Florida. The concept of designing for long life pavements is not new. Many concrete pavements in the United States Canada and many European countries have shown excellent service life of over 50 years, and information about their design features and performance are available in the technical literature. However, as the performance of a pavement is affected not only b y its design but also by its local conditions such as weather, soil, topography and available materials, the designs which have worked well in other regions cannot be applied directly to Florida without evaluation and suitable adjustments. Research is need ed to determine the best construction practices and design features for long life concrete pavements, with service life of over 50 years, A detailed Literature Review on long life concrete pavem ents has been provided in Appendix A, Programs like MEPDG (Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide) and DRIP 2.0 (Drainage Requirement in Pavements) are widely being used throughout the United States and the rest of the world. Different parameters can be tested to determine their

PAGE 17

17 effect on the overall concrete pavement structure. Variables like : traffic conditions concrete properties, concrete layer thickness, weather condition s drainage design and aggregates are some of the different parameters which must be tested using these computer programs. In view of the aforementioned reasons, this research project was started to obtain the data and knowledge necessary to develop a long life concrete pavement in the state of Florida. In order to make the proce ss simpler, existing FDOT concrete pavement designs were selected to serve as guidelines to which adjustments would be made to make these designs adequate. Goals and Objectives The main objectives of the study art: t o evaluate the long life concrete pavement designs which have been used successfully in other states and countries and how they may be applied to Florida conditions. T o develop several designs for lo ng life concrete pavements, with expected service life of over 50 years, which are suitable for use in Florida. Finally, t o recommend courses of action for FDOT in the area of long life concrete pavement designs. Research Approach The following research approach was taken: develop a l iterature review on long life concrete pavement Implem ent t wo typical concrete pavement designs used in Florida were evaluated using MEPDG to see if they could be used as long lice concrete pavements. The results of the MEPDG show that it is feasible to use the two designs evaluated for long life pavement if the slab thickness is adequate and if the concrete

PAGE 18

18 properties are adequate low elastic modulus, low coefficient of thermal expansion and adequate flexural strength. Next, t he drainage characteristics of the two Florida designs were evaluated using the DRIP 2.0 software. Finally, r ecommended long life concrete pavement designs for Florida were developed.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 SELECTED CONCRETE PA VEMENT DESIGNS This chapter presents the properties of the designs used in the preparation of MEDPG testing of this project. T wo Typical Florida Concrete Pavement Designs Two concrete pavement designs which are currently used by FDOT were selected for analysis. Table 2 1 shows the features of these two designs, which include the slab thickness, base and subgrade types. These two designs will be referred to as Type I and Type II in this report. According to FDOT, Type I corresponds to a PCC slab of varied thickness with a 4 inch treated permeable base over a 2 inch asphalt structural course Adjusted Type II corresponds to a PC C slab of varied thickness with a 6 inch granular permeable base over 60 inch A 3 soil. Type I Design has a 12 inch Type B stabilized subgrade with a minimum LBR of 40. These two designs are shown in Figure 2 1. MEPDG Model for Evaluation of Design Life The two Florida concrete pavement designs, were evaluated using the MEPDG model to determine their use as long life concrete pavements. The MEPDG model was used to evaluate whether or not these two designs could provide long life concrete pavements with a design life of 50 years, and to determine the required slab thickness and concrete properties for such application. The inputs to the MEPDG software for this analysis are described in the following sections.

PAGE 20

20 Table 2 1 Two Adjusted Typical Concrete Pavement Designs used by FDOT Compiled from a report by the FDOT Type Design Slab Thickness Base Type Subgrade Type Minimum (inch) Maximum (inch) Type I 8 N/A 4 inch treated permeable base over 2 inch asphalt structural course 12 inch Type B stabilized subgrade (LBR 40) Type II 6 inch special stabilized sub base over 60 inch special select embankment None Note: Information compiled from a report by Nazef et al in 2011

PAGE 21

21 Type I Type II Figure 2 1 Two a djusted FDOT concrete pavement designs selected for analysis

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 3 MEPDG INPUTS AND FLO RIDA CALIBRATION The Mechanical Empirical Pavement Design Guide, commonly referred to as MEPDG, evolved from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 1 37A. The project was awarded in 1996 with the purpose to develop a design methodology that used the latest technology as well as the available database to successfully create working pavements. The design program considers a variety of parameters which ultimately affect the service life of a pavement. These parameters include but are not limited to: traffic, climate, subgrade conditions and material properties. Designing with MEPDG is an iterative process based on the inputs proposed by the researcher Each trial design is subjected to a modeling process and the responses are used to compute damage ov er the life of the pavement in question. If the results do not meet the desired performance criteria at a given reliability, the program shows these as failed tests. The researcher can change the inputs and the parameters to provide a pavement which passes the required performance set. In order to effectively use the program, MEDPG needs to be calibrated. The Florida Department of Transportation along with the Texas Transportation Institute (ITT) developed a calibration model to implement the MEPDG in the state of Florida. These calibrations were made to better predict the distress that is seen on pavements in the state of Florida with those predict ed using the MEPDG program (Oh, Fernando & Ryu 2008). Multi Level Input Approach MEPDG uses a three level inp ut system for selecting traffic conditions, material properties and environmental related parameters. These levels are used to predict

PAGE 23

23 pavement performance based on each trial that is performed. The program was made in this manner as to allow the designer flexibility when making the appropriate designs. A designer can choose to work an entire project using one level, but the MEPDG makes it possible to mix and match levels according to the data and information available. Level 1 involves the input of data in to the program based on comprehensive laboratory and field testing to characterize design inputs. This level is mostly used on projects which ha ve readily available data. Level 2 inputs are estimated through correlation with other material properties that are gathered through lab data. Level 3 requires the designer to input their own data based on experience and literary review. This level is the least accurate as the values are not definitive. For this research, a mixture of all three levels will be use d. Material properties, traffic conditions and environment conditions were designed to simulate the properties and conditions present in Florida. Computational Methodology MEPDG uses the finite element analysis program ISLAB2000 to compute pavement respon ses. Pavement responses are converted to distress values through the software which has been calibrated using vast databases. For Florida conditions, LTPP data along with independent studies have been used to calibrate MEPDG. These calibrations were made a djusting the calibration factors for each distress function, and will be shown in the following sections. Design Life The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Concrete Pavement Road Map team has proposed the following definitions for LLCP ( Ferragut 2005) : a fix

PAGE 24

24 pavement that would last 50 to 60 years with relatively heavy loads throughout its life ; p lanned maintenance between 10 and 30 years, followed by heavy joint repair and possibly an overlay to take the total pavement life to 60 years ; a mandatory strong foundation with a thinner slab designed for 20 years of service, followed by the construction of a wraparound slab that would provide service f or an additional 30 to 40 years T ayabji and Lim ga ve a summ arization of the definition of long life concrete pavement in the U.S. at the October 2006 In ternational C onference on Long Life Concrete Pavements as follows (Tayabji, 2005 ) : Original con crete service life is 40+ years ; p aveme nt will not exhibit premature construction and materials related distress ; p avement will have reduced potential for cr acking, faulting, and spalling ; and, p avement will maintain desirable ride and surface texture characteristics with minimal intervention act ivities, if warranted, or ride and texture, joi nt resealing, and minor repairs For this purpose, the design life of the concrete pavements to be analyzed by the MEPDG model was set to be 50 years. Joint Design and Edge Support A Jointed Plain Concrete P avement (JPCP) design was chosen for testing with joint design spacing of 15 ft. was chosen for MEPDG testing. In order to test under the most critical conditions, no joint sealant was utilized. The dowels in use are of 1.5 inches in diameter with a dowel bar spacing of 12 inches (FDOT, 2009) This research used a tied PCC shoulder design with a widened slab, as commonly used by FDOT. For testing, a widened slab of 13 ft. was implemented. Furthermore, long term LTE was set to 50 percent.

PAGE 25

25 Climatic Parameters The MEPDG model simulates the temperature and moisture in the pavement structure and the subgrade over the design life of the pavement using the Enhanced Integrated Climatic Model (ECIM). The inputs for the temperature take into consideration: t he historical data of precipitation, air temperature, sunshine and water table distance from the surface. The climatic condition used for this analysis was that for the North Eastern Florida Region. The MEPDG software contains a climatic database that pr ovides hourly data from 800 weather stations all over the United States. The average data from six weather stations in the North Eastern Florida Region were used for this analysis. The weather stati ons used are shown in Figure 3.1 The overall average wea ther profile is identified by latitude (degrees.minutes) of 30.29 and longitude (degrees.minutes) of 81.41. The average elevation was calculated to be 34 ft with a depth of water table of 20 ft. MEPDG Rigid Pavement Performance Prediction Equations Tra nsverse Cracking MEDPG calculates both bottom up cracking and top down cracking of the transverse slab at the same time and presents this data as a percentage value representing predicte d amount of cracking. Equation 3 1 shows the equation used by MEPDG fo r the prediction of transverse cracking in a concrete slab. (3 1) Where: CPK = Predicted amount of bottom up or top down cracking (fraction); and

PAGE 26

26 DI F = damage caused by fatigue in a pavement which causes the transverse cra cking and is shown in Equation 3 2. (3 2) Where: DI F = Total fatigue damag e, n i,j,k = Applied number of load applications at conditions I,j,k,l,m,n,o N i,j,k = Allowable number of load applications at condition I,j,k,l,m,n,o i = Age (Accounts for change in modulus of rupture and elasticity, slab/base contact friction, deterioration of shoulder), j = Month (Accounts for change in base elastic modulus and effective dynamic modulus of subgrade reaction), k = Axle type (single, tandem and tridem for bottom up cracking; short, medium and long wheelbase for top down cracking), l = Load level (incremental load for each type), m = Equivalent temperature difference between top and bottom PCC surfaces. n = Traffic offset path; and, o = Hourly truck traffic fraction.

PAGE 27

27 The allowable number of load applications is based on the applied stresses, strength of the slab an d is shown on Equation 3 3. (3 3) Where: N i,j, k = Allowable number of load applications at condition I,j,k,l,m,n,o; M RI = PCC modulus of rupture at age I, psi, s i,j,k = Applied stress at condition i,j,k,l,m,n; C 1 = Calibration constant 2.0, and; C 2 = Calibration constant 1.22. Total cr acking is found using Equation 3 4 below. It is important to note that based on the studies p erformed by FDOT and TTI, the models and equations used for cracking did not have to be calibrated, as these accurately resembled actual cracking in Florida. (3 4) Where: TCR = Total transverse cracking (percent in all severities), CRK bp = Predicted amount of bottom up transverse cracking (fraction); and, CRK td = Predicted amount of top down transverse cracking (fraction).

PAGE 28

28 Faulting MEPDG predicts faulting using an incremental approach. At the beginning of eac h month, faulting is calculated using data from each of the previous months. This data is then summed up using the Equations 3 5 through 3 10 shown below. Modifications were made in this section to calibrate the MEPDG program to work in Florida conditions. These modifications were made in relation to a long study which compared MEPDG distress results to actual field data (Oh, Fernando & Ryu, 2008) (3 5) (3 6) (3 7) (3 8) (3 9) (3 10) Where: Fault m = Mean joint faulting at the end of the month, inches, Fault i = Incremental change (monthly) in mean transverse joint faulting during month I, inches, FAULTMAX i = Maximum mean transverse joint faulting for month I, inches, FAULTMAX 0 = Initial maximum mean transverse joint faulting,

PAGE 29

29 inches, EROD = Base/Subbase erodibility Factor DE i = Differential Density of energy of subgrade deformation accumulated during month i, d curling = Maximum mean monthly slab corner upward deflection PCC due to temperature curling and moisture warping, P s = Overburden on subgrade, lb, P 200 = Per cent subgrade material passing 200 sieve, WetDays = Average annual number of wet days (greater than 0.1 rainfall), C = Global Calibration Constants (Florida Calibration). [C 1 =2.0; C 2 =1.1; C 3 =0.001725; C 4 =0.0008; C 5 =250; C 6 =0.4; C 7 =1.2] FR = Base freezing index defined as a percentage of time, not applicable in Florida testing. As mentioned above, slab curling and warping is calculated for each month using the ICM weather data that is preloaded into MEPDG. Equation 3 11 shows the procedure to find the temperature differential for each month using th e MEPDG program. (3 11) Where: T m = Effective temperature differential for month m,

PAGE 30

30 T t,m = Mean PCC top surface nighttime temperature (from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am) for month m, T b ,m = Mean PFCC bottom surface nighttime temperature (from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am) for month m, T sh ,m = Equivalent temperature differential due to reversible shrinkage for month m; and, T PCW = Equivalent temperature differential due to permanent curl/warp. Load Transfer Efficiency (LTE) is calculat ed in the MEPDG using Equation 3 12. This is used to calculate the load on the transverse joints of a pavement in question. (3 12) Where: LTE joint = Total transverse joint LTE, %, LTE dowel = Joint LTE if dowels are the only mechanism of load transfer, %, LTE base = Joint LTE if base is the only mechanism of load transfer, %; and, LTE agg = Joint LTE is aggregate interlock is the only mechanism of load Transfer, %. Maximum faulting is a calcul ation based on the differential energy from truck loading, shear stress at slab corner and maximum dowel and joint bearing stress. Calculations can be made using Equation 3 13 through 3 15 shown below.

PAGE 31

31 (3 13) (3 14) (3 15) Where: DE = Differential energy, lb/in, d l = Loaded corner deflection, in, d u = Unloaded corner deflection, in, AGG = Aggregate interlock stiffness factor, K = Coefficient of subgrade reaction, psi/in, h PCC = PCC slab thickness, in, z d = Dowel stiffness factor =JD*k*l*dsp, d = Dowel diameter, in, dsp = Dowel spacing, in, J d = Non dimensional dowel stiffness at the time of load application; and, l = Radius of relative stiffness, in. Load transfer data was gathered from the Portland Cement Association to determine loss of shear capacity in designed pavement structures using MEPDG. These losses are created by traffic load ing and are shown in Equations 3 16 through 3 18.

PAGE 32

32 ( 3 16) (3 17) (3 18) Where: n j = Number of applied load applications for the current increment by load group, j, w = Joint opening, mils (0.001 in) t j = Shear Stress on the transverse crack from the response model for the load group j, psi, t ref = Reference shear stress derived from the PCA test results, psi; and, J agg = Joint Stiffness on the transverse crack computed for the time increment. Last, the damage at the dowel concrete interface has to be computed using Equation 3 19. (3 19) Where:

PAGE 33

33 DAM dow = Damage at dowel concrete interface, C 8 = Coefficient equal to 400, n j = Number of applied load applications for the current increment by load group, j, J d = Non dimensional dowel stiffness at the time of load application, d l = Loaded corner deflection, in, d u = Unloaded corner deflection, in, dsp = Space between adjacent dowels in the wheel path, in, = PCC compressive strength, psi; and, d = Dowel diameter, in. International Roughness Index (IRI) MEPDG combines the initial profile of the pavement and the overall loss of smoothness with age. These values were calibrated using LTPP data which includes field data and spall ing calculated using Equ ations 3 20. As mentioned previously, calibrations were made to the equations to assimilate results to Florida conditions. ( 3 20) Where: IRI = Predicted IRI, in/mi, IRI I = Initial smoothness measured as IRI, in/mi, CRK = Percent slabs with transverse cracks (all severities), SPALL = Percentage of joints with spalling (medium and high

PAGE 34

34 severities), TFAULT = Total Joint faulting cumulated per mi, in; and, C1 = 0.8203 C2 = 0.4417 C3 = 2.5 (Florida calibration) C4 = 25.24 SF = Site Factor. The Site factor equation is an equation based on the pavement age and it is shown below in Equation 3 21. Percentage of joints spalled is found using Equation 3 22. ( 3 21) Where: AGE = Pavement age, yrs, F1 = Freezing index (Not applicable in Florida); and, P 200 = Percent subgrade material passing No. 200 sieve. (3 22) Where: SPALL = Percentage of joints spalled (medium and high severities), AGE = Pavement age, yrs; and, SCF = Scaling actor based on site design (climate related).

PAGE 35

35 Scaling factor is calculated in MEDPG based on properties of PCC slab that is used fo r the design. Equation 3 23 shows this procedure. ( 3 23) Where: AC PCC = PCC air content, %, AGE = Time since construction, yrs, PREFORM = 1 if preformed sealant is present, 0 in not, = PCC compressive strength, psi, FT cycles = Average annual number of freeze thaw cycles (Not applicable in Florida), H PCC = PCC slab thickness, in; and, WC PCC = PCC W/C ratio. Standard Error Calculations A standard error calculation is performed by MEDPG to adjust the values predicted by the program. The error calculations for cracking, faulting and IRI are shown in Equations 3 24 through 3 26. (3 24) Where: Se CR = Standard error of the estimate of transverse cracking at the predicted level of mean cracking; and, CRACK = Predicted transverse cracking based on mean inputs (corresponding to 50 percent reliability), percentage of slabs.

PAGE 36

36 (3 25) Where: Fault(t) = Predicted mean transverse joint faulting at any given time, in. Se F = Standard error of the estimate of faulting at the predicted level of mean faulting. (3 26) Where: Se IRI = Standard deviation of IRI, Var IRI = Variance of initial IRI=29.16 (in/mi)2 Var CRK = Variance of cracking Var SPALL = Variance of spalling = 46.24% Var FAULT = Variance of faulting; and, S e 2 = Variance of overall model error = 745.3 (in/mi)2. Criteri a and Reliability Level s The outputs of the MEPDG analysis give the predicted performance of the pavements in terms of joint faulting, transverse cracking and International Roughness Index (IRI) over the design period. If one or more of the predicted dist resses at the end of the design period exceed the acceptable threshold values, the analyzed pavement would be considered to have failed for the design period (FDOT, 2009)

PAGE 37

37 FDOT performed a selection of design thresholds for cracking, faulting, and IRI ba sed on field data collected. Based on that review, their decision was made to use the following criteria for determining acceptable pavement designs: Transverse Cracki ng: 10 15 percent slabs cracked (Kannekanti and Harvey, 2006) Faulting: 0.12 inches IRI: 170 180 inch/mile (Oh, Fernando & Ryu, 2008) The threshold values used in this report are: IRI = 172 in/mi; Joint faulting = 0.12 in and Transverse cracking = 15%. Design reliability is defined as the probability that the predicted distresses will be les s than the critical level over the design period (AASHTO, 2008) MEPDG gives the results based on a 95% reliability, value which was chosen in accorda nce by the FDOT (FDOT, 2009 ) Traffic Input s There are a va riety of traffic inputs in MEPDG, all based on axle by axle basis way Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) of 4000 trucks. This value is rather conservative, but for purpose of the sensitivity analysis based on PCC properties and aggregates, it was deemed adequate. In a later chapter daily traffic volumes were adjusted accordingly to determine the maximum amount of traffic each design studied could withstand. The general design involves two lanes traveling in each direction, 50 percent of trucks in each direction, 95 percent of trucks in each design lane and an operational speed on 60 mph. Along with these design values, monthly volume adjustments, vehicle class d istribution, hourly truck traffic distribution, traffic growth factor, number of axles

PAGE 38

38 per truck and wheelbase truck tractor factors have been adjusted accordingly. These adjustments can be seen on Table 3 1 through Table 3 6 In addition, axle loading con figuration has been based on an average axle width (edge to edge) of 8.5 ft with dual tire spacing of 12 inches. The tire pressure for modeling and testing purposes was set to 120 psi.

PAGE 39

39 Table 3 1 Monthly Traffic Volume Adjustment Factors Select ed for Analysis. Vehicle Class Month Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13 January 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 February 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 March 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 April 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 May 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 June 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 July 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 August 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 September 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 October 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 November 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 December 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

PAGE 40

40 Table 3 2 V ehicle Class Distribution by Vehicle Class FDOT Vehicle class Percentage Class 4 1.8% Class 5 24.6% Class 6 7.6% Class 7 0.5% Class 8 5.0% Class 9 31.3% Class 10 9.8% Class 11 0.8% Class 12 3.3% Class 13 15.3% Table 3 3 Hourly Traffic Distribution by Period Hour Vehicle Distribution Hour Vehicle Distribution Midnight 2.3% Noon 5.9% 1:00 am 2.3% 1:00 pm 5.9% 2:00 am 2.3% 2:00 pm 5.9% 3:00 am 2.3% 3:00 pm 5.9% 4:00 am 2.3% 4:00 pm 4.6% 5:00 am 2.3% 5:00 pm 4.6% 6:00 am 5.0% 6:00 pm 4.6% 7:00 am 5.0% 7:00 pm 4.6% 8:00 am 5.0% 8:00 pm 3.1% 9:00 am 5.0% 9:00 pm 3.1% 10:00 am 5.9% 10:00 pm 3.1% 11:00 am 5.9% 11:00 pm 3.1%

PAGE 41

41 Table 3 4 Traffic Growth Factor Model used for Analysis. Vehicle Class Growth Rate Growth Function Class 4 4.0% Compound Class 5 4.0% Compound Class 6 4.0% Compound Class 7 4.0% Compound Class 8 4.0% Compound Class 9 4.0% Compound Class 10 4.0% Compound Class 11 4.0% Compound Class 12 4.0% Compound Class 13 4.0% Compound Table 3 5 Number of Axles per Truck used for Analysis. Vehicle Class Single Axle Tandem Axle Tridem Axle Quad Axle Class 4 1.62 0.39 0.00 0.00 Class 5 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Class 6 1.02 0.99 0.00 0.00 Class 7 1.00 0.26 0.83 0.00 Class 8 2.38 0.67 0.00 0.00 Class 9 1.13 1.93 0.00 0.00 Class 10 1.19 1.09 0.89 0.00 Class 11 4.29 0.26 0.06 0.00 Class 12 3.52 1.14 0.06 0.00 Class 13 2.15 2.13 0.35 0.00 Table 3 6 Wheelbase Truck Tractor Factors used for Analysis. Properties Short Medium Long Average Axle Spacing (ft) 12 15 18 Percent of trucks 33% 33% 34%

PAGE 42

42 Figure 3 1 Six weather stations used to provide climatic input for analysis. (Oh, Fernando & Ryu, 2008)

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL PARAMETERS USED FOR MEPDG ANALYSIS This chapter describe s the different base and subbase materials that were chosen for this research. Both the base and subbase for Type I and T ype II designs will be analyzed. MEPDG uses its Integrated Climatic Model (ICM) to correctly model the behavior of the materials for each pavement design. MEPDG allows for the input of different materials and material properties for the purpose of testing. For this research, the base and subbase materials were modeled as v ery erodible in the program. This setting represents the most critical condition, thus was chosen. Also, zero friction was chosen between the PCC Base interface. Concrete Mix Properties A general Type I cement was used to test both Type I and Type II des igns using MEPDG. The cement type selected had a cementitious material content of 470 lb/yd 3 with a water to conductivity of 1.25 BTU/hr ft F and a heat capacity of 0.28 BTU/lb F Typ e I Granular Permeable Base coefficient of lateral pressure (Ko) of 0.5 and a modulus of 40,000 psi. MEPDG derived the following values: maximum dry unit weight of 127.2 pcf the specific gravity of soils of 2.70, saturated hydraulic conductivity of 0.051 ft/hr, optimum gravimetric water content of 7.4%, and calculated degree of saturation of 61.2%. ICM input tables of gradation and plasticity can be seen in Tables 4 1 and 4 2.

PAGE 44

44 Asphalt Concrete An asphalt concrete was chosen for this research with an effective binder content of 11.6%, air voids of 7% a total unit weight of 150 pcf and a permeability of 10 ft/day The thermal conductivity of the asphalt was defined as 0.67 capacity of 0.23 BTU/lb PG 76 22. Type B (LBR 40) L imerock Bearing R atio (LBR) is unique to Florida and i t is based on the California Bearing Ration (CBR) FDOT specifies the use of a base material with LBR equal to 40 (FDOT, 2009) MEPDG works with CBR values, hence a conversion was needed. This conversion can be seen in Equation 4 1. (4 1) The soil used in MEPDG was an A of lateral pressure (Ko) of 0.5, a CBR of 32 and a modulus of 23,479 psi. MEPDG derived the following values: maximum dry unit weight of 120 pcf, the specific gravity of so ils of 2.70, saturated hydraulic conductivity of 0.0038 ft/hr, optimum gravimetric water content of 7.3%, and calculated degree of saturation of 49.1%. ICM input tables of gradation and plasticity can be seen in Tables 4 3 and 4 4. Select A 3 The A lateral pressure (Ko) of 0.5 and a modulus of 16,000 psi. MEPDG derived the following values: maximum dry unit weight of 120 pcf, the specific gravity of soils of 2.70,

PAGE 45

45 saturated hydraulic conductivity of 0.0037 ft/hr, optimum gravimetric water content of 7.3%, calculated degree of saturation of 49.1% and permeability of 100 ft/day. ICM input tables of gradation and plasticity can be seen in Tables 4 3 and 4 4 Type II Granular Permeable Base coefficient of lateral pressure (Ko) of 0.5 and a modulus of 40,000 psi. MEPDG derived the following values: maximum dry unit weight of 127.2 pcf, t he specific gravity of soils of 2.70, saturated hydraulic conductivity of 0.051 ft/hr, optimum gravimetric water content of 7.4%, and calculated degree of saturation of 61.2%. ICM input tables of gradation and plasticity can be seen in Tables 4 1 and 4 2. Select A 3 The A lateral pressure (Ko) of 0.5 and a modulus of 16,000 psi. MEPDG derived the following values: maximum dry unit weight of 120 pcf, the specific gravity of so ils of 2.70, saturated hydraulic conductivity of 0.0037 ft/hr, optimum gravimetric water content of 7.3%, calculated degree of saturation of 49.1% and permeability of 100 ft/day. ICM input tables of gradation and plasticity can be seen in Tables 4 3 and 4 4.

PAGE 46

46 Table 4 1 Gradation and Plasticity Index Inputs for Permeable Aggregate ICM Properties Value Plasticity Index, PI: 1 Liquid Limit (LL) 6 Compacted Layer No Passing #200 sieve (%): 8.7 Passing #40 20 Passing #4 sieve (%): 44.7 D10(mm) 0.1035 D20(mm) 0.425 D30(mm) 1.306 D60(mm) 10.82 D90(mm) 46.19 Table 4 2 Sieve Analysis for Permeable Aggregate used in Analysis. Sieve Percent Passing 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm #200 8.7 #100 #80 12.9 #60 #50 #40 20 #30 #20 #16 #10 33.8 #8 #4 44.7 3/8" 57.2 1/2" 63.1 3/4" 72.7 1" 78.8 1 1/2" 85.8 2" 91.6 2 1/2" 3" 3 1/2" 97.6 4" 97.6

PAGE 47

47 Table 4 3 Gradation and Plasticity Inputs for LBR 40 used in Analysis. ICM Properties Value Plasticity Index, PI: 0.00 Liquid Limit (LL) 11.00 Compacted Layer Yes Passing #200 sieve (%): 5.20 Passing #40 76.80 Passing #4 sieve (%): 95.30 D10(mm) 0.09 D20(mm) 0.13 D30(mm) 0.19 D60(mm) 0.33 D90(mm) 1.46 Table 4 4 Sieve Analysis for LBR 40 used in Analysis. Sieve Percent Passing 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm #200 5.2 #100 #80 33 #60 #50 #40 76.8 #30 #20 #16 #10 93.4 #8 #4 95.3 3/8" 96.6 1/2" 97.1 3/4" 98 1" 98.6 1 1/2" 99.2 2" 99.7 2 1/2" 3" 3 1/2" 99.9 4" 99.9

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 5 EVALUATION OF PCC AG GREGATE ON PAVEMENT DISTRESS The right choice of aggregate is fundamental for the effective development of a long life concrete pavement. In this case, three different aggregates, all used in Florida, were s tudied to determine the best aggregate for the application. This chapter presents the studies and the results from the analyses performed. In this analysis, PCC slab thickness will be varied to determine the effects of slab thickness compared to the aggreg ate used in the PCC. Florida Concrete Aggregates Three typical concretes used in Florida, made with three different aggregates were used for this analysis. These three aggregates are (1) Brooksville limestone (a porous limestone from Brooksville, Florida, (2) Calera limestone (a dense limestone from Calera, Alabama), and (3) river gravel (from Alabama). Typical properties of these concretes as obtained from previous studies for FDOT were used as inputs for concrete material properties (Tia et al., 1989) Unit w eights Table 5 1 shows the typical unit weights of concrete s made with three different aggregates : Brooksville, Calera and River Gravel These values were used as the unit weights for the three different concretes considered in the analysis. Coefficients of thermal e xpansion Table 5 2 shows the typical coefficients of thermal expansion of these concretes made with these three aggregates. These values were used as the coefficient of thermal expansion for these three concretes in the analysis.

PAGE 49

49 Modulus of rupture and e lasticity A flexural strength of concrete of 650 psi was used in the analysis. In a p revious study by Tia et al (1989 ) for the FDOT, the elastic modulus of Florida concrete was related to the flexural strength, unit weight and the type of aggregate used. The developed equations for estimation of elastic modulus were used in estimating the elastic moduli of these three concretes used in the MEPDG analyses. Table 5 3 shows the calculation of the elastic moduli of these three concret es with a flexural strength of 650 psi. Effects of Concrete Aggregate Type (Type I) Brooksville Aggregate Table 5 4 shows the predicted terminal distresses at 50 years of concrete pavements of Type I design and using concrete containing Brooksville limestone aggregate. The flexural strength of the concrete used in the analysis was 650 psi. It can be seen that when the concrete slab thickness is 12 inches or less, the pavement is predicted to have failed at the end of 50 years. However, with a slab t hickness of 13 inches, the predicted distresses are below the threshold values, and the pavement is considered adequate for 50 year design life. Calera Aggregate Table 5 5 shows the predicted terminal distresses of similar concrete pavements of Type I desi gn and using concrete containing Calera limestone aggregate. It can be seen that when the concrete slab thickness is 13 inches or less, the pavement is predicted to have failed at the end of 50 years. However, with a slab thickness of 15 inches, the pred icted distresses are below the threshold values, and the pavement would be considered adequate for 50 year design life.

PAGE 50

50 River Gravel Aggregate Table 5 6 shows the predicted terminal distresses of similar concrete pavements of Type I design and using concre te containing river gravel. It can be seen that when the concrete slab thickness is 15 inches or less, the pavement is predicted to have failed at the end of 50 years. However, with a slab thickness of 16 inches, the predicted distresses are below the th reshold values, and the pavement would be considered adequate for 50 year design life. Effects of Concrete Aggregate Type (Type II) Brooksville Aggregate Table 5 7 shows the predicted terminal distresses at 50 years of concrete pavements of Type II design and using concrete containing Brooksville limestone aggregate and with a flexural streng th of 70 0 psi. It can be seen that when the concrete slab thickness is 11 inches or less, the pavement is predicted to have failed at the end of 50 years. However, wi th a slab thickness of 13 inches, the predicted distresses are below the threshold values, and the pavement is considered adequate for 50 year design life. Calera Aggregate Table A18 shows the predicted terminal distresses of similar concrete pavements of Type II design and using concrete containing Calera limestone aggregate. It can be seen that when the concrete slab thickness is 15 inches or less, the pavement is predicted to have failed at the end of 50 years. However, with a slab thickness of 16 inch es, the predicted distresses are below the threshold values, and the pavement would be considered adequate for 50 year design life.

PAGE 51

51 River Gravel Aggregate Table 5 9 shows the predicted terminal distresses of similar concrete pavements of Type II design and using concrete containing river gravel. It can be seen that when the concrete slab thickness is 15 inches or less, the pavement is predicted to have failed at the end of 50 years. However, with a slab thickness of 16 inches, the predicted distresses are below the threshold values, and the pavement would be considered adequate for 50 year design life. Summary of Findings Two typical concrete pavement designs used in Florida were evaluated using the MEPDG model to assess their suitability for use as long l ife concrete pavement with a design life of 50 years. The factors evaluated include the concrete slab thickness and the aggregate used in the concrete. The results of the analysis show that the concrete slab thickness and aggregate used in the concrete h ave significant effects on the predicted performance. The three aggregates used in the analysis included Brooksville limestone, Calera limestone and river gravel. For concrete with the same design flexural strength, Brooksville limestone was shown to ha ve the best predicted performance, followed by Calera limestone and the river gravel is the worst. The better performance of the Brooksville aggregate is possibly due to the relatively low elastic modulus and low coefficient of thermal expansion of concre te made with Brooksville limestone. Between the two types of concrete pavement designs evaluated, Type II design shows better predicted performance than Type I design, according to the MEPDG model. Table 5 10 shows the predicted terminal distresses of the passing concrete pavements according to MEPDG.

PAGE 52

52 Table 5 1 Typical Unit Weights of Florida Concretes Condition Aggregate Unit weight (pcf) 28 day cure Brooksville 145 Calera 152 River Gravel 150 Note: Content from report by Tia et. al., 1989. Table 5 2 Typical Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Florida Concretes Condition Aggregate CTE (x 10 6 in/in/F) 28 day Brooksville 5.68 Calera 5.99 River Gravel 7.2 Note: Content from report by Tia, Bloomquist and Alungbe, 1991. Table 5 3 Elastic Modulus of Concretes made with Different Aggregates Equation Condition Aggregate [w] Unit weight [f r ] Modulus of Rupture [E] Elasticity E = 4.20 (w 1.5 ) f r 28 day Brooksville 145 pcf 650 psi 4766665 psi E = 4.09 (w 1.5 ) f r Calera 152 650 4981981 psi E = 3.69 (w 1.5 ) f r River Gravel 150 650 4406326 psi Table 5 4 Predicted Distress of Type I Concrete Pavement Using Brooksville Aggregate Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 78.6 100.1 65.4 73 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 67.9 39.5 12.6 3.1 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0 0.007 0.002 0.013 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Note: E = 4766665 psi Table 5 5 Predicted Distress of Type I Concrete Pavement Using Calera Aggregate Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 14 15 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 143 147.6 70.4 90.4 81.3 63.4 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 94.5 84.4 38.1 26.2 12.9 4.3 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.003 0.009 0.003 0.013 0.014 0 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Note: E = 4981981 psi

PAGE 53

53 Table 5 6 Predicted Distress of Type I Concrete Pavement Using River Gravel Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 118.2 100.1 65.5 108.3 63.2 65.3 63.6 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 97.2 90.5 69.5 34.5 25.4 8.9 2.4 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.001 0.003 0 0.032 0 0.003 0.001 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Note: E = 4406326 Table 5 7 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete Pavement Using Brooksville Aggregate Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 63.6 63.2 63.2 66.2 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 67.9 38.9 13.5 2.3 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0 0 0 0.004 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Note: E = 4766665 psi. Table 5 8 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete Pavement Using Calera Aggregate Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 101.9 70.6 81.4 63.8 72.8 63.3 63.2 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 94.4 81.1 31.4 21.7 12.1 4.6 1.3 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0 0 0.007 0 0.009 0 0 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Note: E = 4981981 psi. Table 5 9 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete Pavement Using River Gravel Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 146.7 71.6 64.1 92.8 85.6 76.4 80.5 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 97 90.2 70.3 29.6 14.6 7.9 2.3 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.006 0 0 0.025 0.011 0.019 0.029 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Note: E = 4406326 psi

PAGE 54

54 Table 5 10 Predicted Distresses of Passing Concrete Pavements Type I Type II Aggregate Brooksville Calera River Gravel Brooksville Calera River Gravel Slab Thickness (inches) 13 15 16 13 16 16 Modulus of Elasticity (psi) 4766665 4981981 4406326 4766665 4981981 4406326 Pavement Distress Terminal IRI (in/mi) 74 63.4 63.6 66.2 63.3 80.5 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 3.1 4.3 2.4 2.3 4.6 2.3 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.013 0 0.001 0.004 0 0.029

PAGE 55

55 CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF MODULUS OF RUPTURE EFFECT ON PAVEMENT D ISTRESS resist deformation under load. This chapter presents the analyses performed on designed pavements with the aid of the MEPDG software. MEPDG simulates the distresses experienced by a pavement when a PCC slab is loaded by a passing truck or vehicle. As descr ibed in Chapter 5, Brooksville limestone was shown to have the best predicted performance As a result, Brooksville aggregate will be used in the modulus of rupture analysis. Modulus of Rupture Type I Analyses were performed on the concrete pavements using Type I design and Brooksville aggregate, with the modulus of rupture of concrete varying from 500 psi to 800 psi in increments of 100 psi. Table 6 1 shows the predicted terminal distresses of these concrete pavements with modulus of rupture of concr ete of 500, 600, 700 and 800 psi. It is noted that the elastic modulus of the concrete changes as the strength of the concrete changes. The estimated elastic moduli (E) of concrete of different moduli of rupture ( f r ) were determined from the regression Equation 6 1 (Tia et al., 1989) (6 1) Where: E = Elastic modulus, psi, w = Unit weight, pcf; and, f r = Modulus of rupture, psi.

PAGE 56

56 Type II Analyses were performed on the concrete pavements using Type II design and Brooksville agg regate, with the modulus of rupture of concrete varying from 500 psi to 800 psi in increments of 100 psi. Table 6 2 shows the predicted terminal distresses of these concrete pavements with modulus of rupture of concrete of 500, 600, 700 and 800 psi. Sum mary of Findings Type I It can be seen that when the modulus of rupture is less than or equal to 600 psi, all the concrete pavements with a slab thickness of 13 inches or less are predicted to have failed before the 50 year period. For the concrete pavement with a modulus of rupture of 700 psi, the pavement is predicted to be adequate at 50 years if the concrete slab thickness is 12 inches or higher. For the concrete pavement with a modulus of rupture of 800 psi, the pavement is predicted to be adeq uate at 50 years if the concrete slab thickness is 11 inches or more. Type II It can be seen that when the modulus of rupture is less than or equal to 600 psi, all the concrete pavements with a slab thickness of 13 inches or less are predicted to have fail ed before the 50 year period. For the concrete pavement with a modulus of rupture of 700 psi, the pavement is predicted to be adequate at 50 years if the concrete slab thickness is 12 inches or higher. For the concrete pavement with a modulus of rupture of 800 psi, the pavement is predicted to be adequate at 50 years if the concrete slab thickness is 11 inches or more.

PAGE 57

57 Table 6 1 Predicted Distresses of Type I Concrete Pavement with Different Modulus of Rupture Brooksville Aggregate Modulus of Rupture 500 psi (E = 3666666psi) Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 103.9 128.2 69.7 65.9 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 99.2 97.1 91.7 78.7 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0 0 0 0 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Modulus of Rupture 600 psi Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 75.5 123.5 65.5 63.4 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 87.9 68.7 39.5 6 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0 0.006 0 0 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Modulus of Rupture 700 psi Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 98.1 63.1 71.8 63.2 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 40.2 15.7 2.3 1.6 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.003 0 0.012 0 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Modulus of Rupture 800 psi Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 64.7 63.3 64 63 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 6.9 1.5 0.3 0.1 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.001 0 0.002 0 Pass/Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass

PAGE 58

58 Table 6 2 Predicted Distresses of Type II Concrete Pavement with Different Modulus of Rupture Brooksville Aggregate (E = 4766665 psi) Modulus of Rupture 500 psi Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 101.8 127.1 120 119 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 88.9 97.1 91.8 79.5 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.002 0 0 0.006 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Modulus of Rupture 600 psi Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 74.9 123.5 79.2 75.4 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 87.7 69.2 55.6 6.4 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0 0.005 0.003 0.012 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Modulus of Rupture 700 psi Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 56 79.4 63.5 64.6 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 39.6 14.2 4.2 1.5 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0 0.008 0 0.002 Pass/Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Modulus of Rupture 800 psi Pavement Distress Slab Thickness (in) Type Measurement 10 11 12 13 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 64.7 63.1 70.5 70.7 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 6.2 1.3 0.2 0.1 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.001 0 0.014 0.014 Pass/Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass

PAGE 59

59 CHAPTER 7 EFFECTS OF BASE TYPE ON PAVEMENT DISTRESS This chapter presents the sensitivity analysis performed on the base materials. As described in Chapter 5, Brooksville limestone was shown to produce the best predicted pavement performance. As a result, Brooksville aggregate will be used in the analysis. Three different types of base materials were evaluated in MEPDG analyses. They were (1) crushed stone, (2) permeable gravel, and (3) permeable asphalt. For the crushed stone base material, the following elastic modulus values were used: 20,000 psi 30,000 psi 40,000 psi For the permeable gravel base material, the following elast ic modulus values were used: 10,000 psi 15,000 psi 20,000 psi For the asphalt base material, the following grades of asphalt were used: PG 64 22 PG 70 22 PG 76 22 Three different base layer thicknesses were used. For the Type I design, the three different base thicknesses used were 4, 6 and 8 inches. For the Type II design, the base thicknesses evaluated were 6, 8 and 10 inches. Type I Table 7 1 shows the predicted terminal distresses of concrete pavements of Type I design using concrete containi ng Brooksville limestone aggregate with a base thickness

PAGE 60

60 of 4 inches and varying the stiffness of the base materials (by varying the elastic modulus of the crushed stone and gravel, or by varying the grade of the asphalt in the asphalt base). A high erodi bility factor of 5 and zero friction between the base and the concrete slab were used in the analyses. Tables 7 2 and 7 3 show the predicted terminal distresses of similar concrete pavements of Type I design with base thickness of 6 inches and 8 inches, respectively. Type II Table 7 4 shows the predicted terminal distresses of concrete pavements of Type II design using concrete containing Brooksville limestone aggregate with a base thickness of 6 inches and varying the stiffness of the base materials. S imilarly, a high erodibility factor of 5 and zero friction were used in the analyses. Tables 7 5 and 7 6 show the predicted terminal distresses of similar concrete pavements of Type II design with base thickness of 8 inches and 10 inches, respectively. Summary of Findings MEPDG analyses were performed to evaluate the effect s of (1) types of base material and (2) stiffness of the base material on the predicted performance of Type I and Type II concrete pavement designs used in Florida. The predicted per formance of the pavement appears to have improved slightly with an increase in base thickness. However, the type of base material and the stiffness of the base material appear to have no significant effect on the predicted performance according to the res ults of the MEPDG analyses. In comparing the results from Tables 7 1 through 7 6, it appears that the effects of the elastic modulus of the crush stone base, the elastic modulus of the gravel base or

PAGE 61

61 the grade of the asphalt used in the asphalt base have no clear trend from the results of the MEPDG analyses. Type I It can be seen on Table 7 1 that when the concrete slab thickness is 12 inches or less, the pavement is predicted to have failed at the end of 50 years for all base materials considered. Howev er, with a slab thickness of 13 inches, the predicted distresses are below the threshold values, and the pavement would be considered adequate for 50 year design life with either crushed stone, permeable granular aggregate or permeable asphalt. The type o f base material and the stiffness of the base material appear to have no significant effect on the predicted performance according to the results of the MEPDG analyses. It can be seen on Tables 7 2 and 7 3 that the predicted performance of the pavement appears to have improved slightly with an increase in base thickness. For the designs with 6 inch base, two of the designs with a concrete slab thickness of 12 inches have predicted distresses below the threshold values. These two designs are (1) one using crushed stone base with an elastic modulus of 20,000 psi, and (2) one using permeable asphalt base using PG 64 22 asphalt. For the designs with 8 inch base, three of th e designs with a concrete slab thickness of 12 inches have predicted distress below the threshold values. These three designs are (1) one using crushed stone base with an elastic modulus of 40,000 psi, (2) one using permeable asphalt base using PG 64 22 a sphalt, and (3) one using permeable asphalt base using PG 70 22 asphalt.

PAGE 62

62 Type II It can be seen on Table 7 4 that when the concrete slab thickness is 12 inches or less, the pavement is predicted to have failed at the end of 50 years for all base material s considered. However, with a slab thickness of 13 inches, the predicted distresses are below the threshold values, and the pavement would be considered adequate for 50 year design life with either crushed stone, permeable granular aggregate or permeable asphalt. The type of base material and the stiffness of the base material appear to have no significant effect on the predicted performance according to the results of the MEPDG analyses. It can be seen on Tables 7 5 and 7 6 that the predicted performance of the pavement appears to have improved slightly with an increase in base thickness. For the designs with 8 inch base, three of the designs with a concrete slab thickness of 12 inches have predicted distresses below the threshold values. These three de signs are (1) one using crushed stone base with an elastic modulus of 20,000 psi, (2) one using permeable gravel base with an elastic modulus of 20,000 psi, and (3) one using permeable asphalt base using PG 76 22 asphalt. For the designs with 10 inch base three of the designs with a concrete slab thickness of 12 inches have predicted distress below the threshold values. These three designs are (1) one using permeable gravel base with an elastic modulus of 20,000 psi, (2) one using permeable asphalt base using PG 70 22 asphalt, and (3) one using permeable asphalt base using PG 76 22 asphalt.

PAGE 63

63 Table 7 1 Predicted Distress of Type I Concrete with a 4 inch Base Layer Asphalt Properties PCC Slab Thickness (Inches) Modulus (psi) Superpave Binder Grading 12 13 14 Low Temp (*C) High Temp (*C) Crushed Stone 20000 N/A N/A (1) 63.1 65.1 66.1 (2) 12.6 3.1 2.3 (3) 0 0 0.004 30000 N/A N/A 73.7 63.1 63.2 5.1 3.2 1.9 0.011 0 0 40000 N/A N/A 68.6 61.1 63.1 14.5 2.7 1.9 0.004 0 0 Permeable Gravel 10000 N/A N/A 80.9 63.4 63.2 13.4 2.4 0.7 0.012 0 0 15000 N/A N/A 64.1 63.5 63.5 9 3 1 0.001 0.001 0 20000 N/A N/A 65.4 63.5 64.5 12.6 3.1 1.4 0.002 0 0.002 Permeable Asphalt N/A 22 64 63.3 63.3 63.1 6.2 3.4 0.3 0 0 0 22 70 68.8 63.1 63.2 6.2 3.4 0 0.001 0 0 22 76 63.2 63.1 63.7 6.2 3.4 0 0 0.002 0.001 Note: (1) IRI (in/mi) (2) Transverse Cracking (% Slabs Cracked) (3) Joint Faulting (in)

PAGE 64

64 Table 7 2 Predicted Distress of Type I Concrete with a 6 inch Base Layer Asphalt Properties PCC Slab Thickness (Inches) Modulus (psi) Superpave Binder Grading 11 12 13 14 Low Temp (*C) High Temp (*C) Crushed Stone 20000 N/A N/A (1) 63.3 63.2 63.1 62.1 (2) 38.8 2.5 3 1.6 (3)0.014 0.002 0 0 30000 N/A N/A 63.1 63.1 63.1 7.7 3.2 1.6 0 0 0 40000 N/A N/A 63.1 63.2 63.1 5 2.9 1.8 0.029 0 0 Permeable Gravel 10000 N/A N/A 63.2 63.8 63.2 9.6 2.1 1.3 0 0.001 0 15000 N/A N/A 63.1 63.1 63.1 10.3 2.5 1.5 0 0 0 20000 N/A N/A 63.1 63.1 63.2 8.9 3 1.6 0 0 0 Permeable Asphalt N/A 22 64 66.2 63.1 61.2 60.4 25.8 2.3 3.2 0.2 0.004 0.002 0 0 22 70 63.3 63.2 63.1 13.3 3.1 0.2 0 0 0 22 76 63.3 63.1 63.1 12.1 3.1 0.1 0 0 0 Note: (1) IRI (in/mi) (2) Transverse Cracking (% Slabs Cracked) (3) Joint Faulting (in)

PAGE 65

65 Table 7 3 Predicted Distress of Type I Concrete with a n 8 inch Base Layer Asphalt Properties PCC Slab Thickness (Inches) Modulus (psi) Superpave Binder Grading 11 12 13 14 Low Temp (*C) High Temp (*C) Crushed Stone 20000 N/A N/A (1) 63.2 62.8 63.1 (2) 8.5 3.2 1.2 (3) 0 0.013 0 30000 N/A N/A 63.2 62.7 61.5 6.3 3.3 0.5 0 0.001 0.002 40000 N/A N/A 63.2 63.2 63.2 63.6 4.8 3.8 2.8 0.2 0 0 0 0 Permeable Gravel 10000 N/A N/A 64 63.3 71.8 10.5 2.2 1.2 0.001 0 0.014 15000 N/A N/A 77.4 63.1 64.6 9.6 2.3 1.3 0.011 0 0.002 20000 N/A N/A 63.1 63.1 68.6 8.5 3.2 1.2 0 0 0.009 Permeable Asphalt N/A 22 64 74.1 66.5 63.4 62 12.1 3 2.1 1.8 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 22 70 74.8 67.1 63.4 62.3 13 3.7 2.5 1.2 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 22 76 73.9 66.4 63.5 11.9 2.9 0.2 0.001 0.001 0 Note: (1) IRI (in/mi) (2) Transverse Cracking (% Slabs Cracked) (3) Joint Faulting (in)

PAGE 66

66 Table 7 4 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete with a 6 inch Base Layer Asphalt Properties PCC Slab Thickness (Inches) Modulus (psi) Superpave Binder Grading 12 13 14 Low Temp (*C) High Temp (*C) Crushed Stone 20000 N/A N/A (1) 74.5 72.2 70.7 (2) 7 2.6 2.4 (3) 0.011 0.012 0.011 30000 N/A N/A 81.2 73.2 71.9 14.5 3.6 1.8 0.011 0.012 0.010 40000 N/A N/A 81 73.6 71.4 14.4 4.1 1.2 0.011 0.013 0.012 Permeable Gravel 10000 N/A N/A 79.3 72.4 63.8 11.9 2.6 0 0.011 0.01 0.001 15000 N/A N/A 80.6 72.1 63.6 13.6 2.3 0.2 0.011 0.013 0.009 20000 N/A N/A 73.5 72.2 69.7 5 2.5 2.1 0.011 0.013 0.011 Permeable Asphalt N/A 22 64 76.9 66.5 63.7 15.5 3.1 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 22 70 68.9 66.5 65 5.8 3.1 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 22 76 68.9 66.7 62.6 5.7 3.4 0.4 0.001 0.001 0.001 Note: (1) IRI (in/mi) (2) Transverse Cracking (% Slabs Cracked) (3) Joint Faulting (in)

PAGE 67

67 Table 7 5 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete with an 8 inch Base Layer Asphalt Properties PCC Slab Thickness (Inches) Modulus (psi) Superpave Binder Grading 11 12 13 14 Low Temp (*C) High Temp (*C) Crushed Stone 20000 N/A N/A (1) 83.1 75.3 70.8 64.7 (2) 17 2.8 2.5 1.2 (3) 0.009 0.008 0.005 0.001 30000 N/A N/A 80.3 73.4 63.4 13.8 4.1 3.2 0.01 0.012 0.001 40000 N/A N/A 80.2 71.9 69.2 13.6 2.4 1.8 0.01 0.012 0.011 Permeable Gravel 10000 N/A N/A 73.3 72.2 63.9 4.7 2.5 0 0.011 0.013 0.001 15000 N/A N/A 80.5 72.5 63.7 13.7 3 0 0.011 0.013 0.001 20000 N/A N/A 81.1 72.3 69.8 63.5 14.6 2.8 2.2 1.7 0.011 0.012 0.003 0.002 Permeable Asphalt N/A 22 64 73 63.5 63.2 10.9 2.3 2.1 0.001 0.001 0.001 22 70 71.8 66.8 59.6 5.4 3.4 2.8 0.001 0.001 0.001 22 76 70.9 66.5 64.6 63.5 8.3 3 2.6 2.1 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Note: (1) IRI (in/mi) (2) Transverse Cracking (% Slabs Cracked) (3) Joint Faulting (in)

PAGE 68

68 Table 7 6 Predicted Distress of Type II Concrete with a 10 inch Base Layer Asphalt Properties PCC Slab Thickness (Inches) Modulus (psi) Superpave Binder Grading 10 11 12 13 14 Low Temp (*C) High Temp (*C) Crushed Stone 20000 N/A N/A (1) 87.7 73.4 70.5 (2) 9.7 2.1 1.2 (3) 0.01 0.011 0.009 30000 N/A N/A 80.3 71.9 65.4 13.9 2.6 2.3 0.01 0.012 0.009 40000 N/A N/A 80.7 73.5 64 14.5 2.4 2 0.01 0.009 0.008 Permeable Gravel 10000 N/A N/A 73.1 72.1 71.4 4.6 2.5 1.3 0.011 0.013 0.013 15000 N/A N/A 77.7 71.8 71.5 10.5 2.3 1.6 0.011 0.012 0.013 20000 N/A N/A 77.7 76.3 71.8 71.2 10.7 3.2 2.5 1.4 0.01 0.009 0.008 0.008 Permeable Asphalt N/A 22 64 71.7 66.2 62.3 9.3 2.7 2.2 0.001 0.001 0 22 70 74.8 65.2 62.5 59.5 13 2.7 2 1.5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 22 76 73.9 67.1 65.7 60.7 12 3.8 2.8 2.1 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 Note: (1) IRI (in/mi) (2) Transverse Cracking (% Slabs Cracked) (3) Joint Faulting (in)

PAGE 69

69 CHAPTER 8 EVALUATION OF PAVEME NT DISTRESS CAUSED B Y INCREMENTAL AADTT TRAFFIC This chapter presents the traffic sensitivity analysis performed on Type I and Type II designs. As described in Chapter 5, Brooksville limestone was shown to produce the best predicted pavement performance. As a result, Brooksville aggregate will be used i n the analysis The initial Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) was increased, using MEPDG, incrementally until failure. The general design involves 2 lanes traveling in each direction, 50 percent of trucks in each direction, 95 percent of trucks i n each design lane and an operational speed on 60 mph. Along with these design values, monthly volume adjustments, vehicle class distribution, hourly truck traffic distribution, traffic growth factor, number of axles per truck and wheelbase truck tractor f actors have been adjusted accordingly. Remaining t raffic conditions were presented in Chapter 3. In this analysis (A) PCC slab thickness of 13 inches and (B) Modulus of Rupture of 70 0 psi were held constant to determine the long life effects of traffic lo ading compared to the distress in the PCC. Type I The result of this sensitivity analysis is presented in Table 8 1, which shows the critical initial two way AADTT traffic for the pavement structure tested. Type II The result of this sensitivity analysis is presented in Table 8 2, which shows the critical initial two way AADTT traffic for the pavement structure tested. Summary of Findings The resulting values show that both Type I and Type II are designs which can withstand a large AADTT value in accordanc e to MEPDG results. Data from the GIS

PAGE 70

70 database shows the largest truck traffic recorded in Florida is of 22,110. This data corresponds to roadway No. 86095000 located in FDOT district 4.This data can be seen in Table 8 3. Top 300 highest AADTT loaded roadways in FDOT GIS data can be seen in Appendix B. Comparing the LTPP data to MEPDG results based on critical AADTT traffic, Type I design has a 14.07% difference while Type II has a 5.02% difference to the maximum Florida value of 22,110 AADTT. This sh ows that Type I and Type II designs could be adequate for use as long life concrete pavement designs in Florida. Type I It can be seen on Table 8 1 that for the tested pavement, the critical initial two way AADTT traffic was of 19,000. This value represent s testing results when using MEPDG for a Type I pavement under 50 year design life. It can also be noted that the pavement failed under conditions of transverse cracking. Under these conditions, MEPDG shows that a Type I design pavement could withstand an initial two way AADTT of 18,000 before it begins to fail; this happening ultimately when 19,000 AADTT is reached. Type II It can be seen on Table 8 2 that for the tested pavement, the critical initial two way AADTT traffic was of 21,000. This value repre sents testing results when using MEPDG for a Type II pavement under 50 year design life. It can also be noted that the pavement failed under conditions of transverse cracking. Under these conditions, MEPDG shows that a Type I I design pavement could withstand an initial two way AADTT of 20,000 before it begins to fail; this happening ultimately when 21,000 AADTT is reached.

PAGE 71

71 Table 8 1 Results of MEPDG Traffic Analysis on Type I Design Traffic Distress Performance Criteria Initial Two way AADTT Distress Target Reliability Target Distress Predicted 4000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 64.9 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 0.2 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.003 6000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 72.6 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 0.5 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.017 8000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 75.3 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 0.9 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.004 10000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 79.6 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 1.4 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.029 15000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 86.6 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 3 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.04 18000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 90.5 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 4.3 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.045 19000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 91.8 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 4.8 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.047

PAGE 72

72 Table 8 2 Results of MEPDG Traffic Analysis on Type II Design Traffic Distress Performance Criteria Initial Two way AADTT Distress Target Reliability Target Distress Predicted 4000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 69.6 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 0.2 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.012 6000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 73.3 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 0.4 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.018 8000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 76.4 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 0.8 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.024 10000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 81 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 1.2 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.014 15000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 86.1 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 2.5 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.039 18000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 86.7 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 3.6 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.006 20000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 92.3 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 4.4 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.048 21000 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 95 93.5 Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked) 15 95 4.8 Mean Joint Faulting (in) 0.12 95 0.05

PAGE 73

73 Table 8 3 FDOT GIS Data Showing Test Roads with Highest AADTT in Florida No. DISTRICT ROADWAY DESC_FRM DESC_TO AAD T T 1 4 86095000 Bridge No 860535 US 1/SR 5 SB 22110 2 4 93220000 Bridge No 930189 Bridge No 930499 21625 3 4 86070000 86095000/EB I595 SR 736/DAVIE BLVD 20468 4 5 92130000 RAMP 92473001 N/A 20193 5 5 92130000 Bridge No 920094 RAMP 92473001 20193 6 4 86070000 Bridge No 860554 86095000/EB I595 18972 7 4 86070000 SR 736/DAVIE BLVD SR 842/BROWARD BLVD 18088 8 4 86070000 Bridge No 860530 Bridge No 860576 17952 9 4 86070000 SR 838/SUNRISE BLVD Bridge No 860117 17816 10 4 86070000 Bridge No 860579 Bridge No 860554 17408 11 4 86070000 Bridge No 860531 Bridge No 860530 17340 12 4 86070000 Bridge No 860576 Bridge No 860579 17204 13 4 86070000 Bridge No 860117 Bridge No 860130 17160 14 4 86070000 Bridge No 860124 PALM BCH. CO. LN. 16767 15 4 93220000 N/A 10TH AVE N 16384 16 4 86070000 DADE CO. LN. Bridge No 860529 15640 17 6 87260000 NW 58 ST Bridge No 870964 15561 18 5 36210000 Bridge No 360022 Bridge No 360043 15535 19 7 10190000 Bridge No 100599 Bridge No 100601 15424 20 7 10190000 Bridge No 100697 Bridge No 100110 15240 21 7 10190000 Bridge No 100601 N/A 15232 22 2 72280000 Bridge No 720334 SR 5 15191 23 4 86070000 Bridge No 860130 Bridge No 860239 15040 24 4 86070000 SR 842/BROWARD BLVD SR 838/SUNRISE BLVD 14787 25 5 36210000 Bridge No 360018 Bridge No 360022 14783 26 8 75470000 N/A RAMP 161 SB ON 14496 27 5 36210000 Bridge No 360001 Bridge No 360063 14419 28 4 93220000 HYPOLUXO RD CR 812/LANTANA RD 14368 29 1 16320000 HILLSBOROUGH CO LINE ON RAMP TO I 4 14108

PAGE 74

74 CHAPTER 9 CURRENT STATE OF DRAINAGE APPLICATIONS This chapter presents some background information on drainage in concrete pavements Background It has been long recognized that infiltration of water into the pavement is a leading cause of pavement distress. The presence of water in the pavement structure has been documented by a number of investigators. The most prominent source of water in any pa vement structure is due to the infiltration of rain water through cracks and through the matrix of the pavement layers. A study performed by Grogan (1992) showed that up to 23% of rainfall can infiltrate a pavement structure during a particular rainstorm. Similar findings have been reported by Ridgeway (1976) and by Dempsey and Robnett (1979). Free water infiltrates the pavement through cracks and joints of the PCC pavement. As the pavement deteriorates it begins to crack, as a result, the amount of free wa ter that infiltrates the system increases. Also, water can infiltrate the pavement through the longitudinal/shoulder joints, as well as, though shallow ditches and medians ( FHWA, 1992 ) The entrapped water within the pavement layers accelerates the deterio ration of the pavement structure by causing premature distress of the pavement. Ridgeway (1976) showed that the mechanism by which the pavement layers deteriorate has been attributed to loss of support, weakening of the subgrade, pumping of the base and/or subgrade, etc. In order to reduce the amount of free water which infiltrates the structure, the sealing of joints and adequate drainage systems have been implemented in pavements

PAGE 75

75 throughout the United States. With proper maintenance, these systems c an help control water infiltration as well as prolong the life of a pavement ( FHWA, 1992 ) The most common approach to provide drainability has been to include a permeable layer within the pavement structure to permit the speedy removal of water percolati ng into the pavement layer. A typical drainag e system is depicted in Figure 9 1. This drainable system consists of the following elements: A permeable base, a separator layer, and an edgedrain system Permeable Base s A permeable base must be permeable enou gh so that water can drain through it efficiently. The base course must have enough stability to support the pavement construction, and to provide the support necessary for the pavement structure. Many states require 100 percent crushed stone with a maxi mum allowable L.A. Abrasion loss of 40 to 45 percent. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) recommends that only crushed stone be used in permeable bases as it provides stability during the construction phase. Also, the soundness loss should not exceed 12 or 18 percent as determined by the sodium sulfate or magnesium sulfate tests, respectively ( FHWA, 1992 ). There are two types of permeable bases, namely Unstabilized and Stabilized. Unstabilized bases have aggregate gradations that contain a small amount of finer sized particles to facilitate load distribution due to the interlock of the aggregates. Stabilized bases are open graded and thus more permeable. To increase the permeability of unstabilized base materials, researchers have usually suggested the use of AASHTO No. 57 and 67 grade aggregates. The gradations of both of these aggregates have a 0 5% material passing No. 8 sieve. Aggregates of

PAGE 76

76 this gradation have lower strength and stiffness because of poor mechanical interlock between aggregates due to the lack of finer aggregates ( FHWA, 1992 ). Stabilized base materials provide stability to the permeable base during pavement construction. The amounts of material passing the No. 8 or 16 screens are limited, thus ensuring high permeability. Stabilization of the base material can be done using asphalt at 2 to 2.5 percent by weight. When using Portland cement to stabilize, an application rate of 2 to 3 bags per cubic yard is usually recommended ( FHWA, 1992 ). A large number of studies have been performed to analyze the minimum coefficient of permeability required in a drainable base, to permit the removal of excess wa ter from the base layer. Table 9 1, shows the current permeability requirements used by different states for unbound permeable base layers.

PAGE 77

77 Table 9 1 Minimum Permeability Requirements for Unbound Base State Minimum Coefficient of Permeability Requirement (ft/day) Florida 200 300 Texas 1000 New Jersey >1000 Kansas 1000 Louisiana 1000 Note: Compiled from a report by Nazef et. al. 2011

PAGE 78

78 Figure 9 1 Drainable pavement system ( FHWA, 1992 ).

PAGE 79

79 CHAPTER 10 PARAMETERS USED FOR DRIP 2.0 ANALYSES This chapter gives an overview of DRIP (Drainage Requirements in Pavements) 2.0 software, and the results of analyses using the DRIP 2.0 software to evaluate the adequacy of drainage of typical Florida concrete pavements. The DRIP (Drainage Requirements in Pavements) 2.0 program is a Windows b ased software that is used for the subsurface drainage analysis of pavements. It was developed by FHWA and Applied Research Associates, Inc. to provide design guidance for handling water that infiltrated into the pavement structure from the surface. The fo llowing sections present the factors affecting drainage in a concrete pavement as considered by the DRIP 2.0 model. Water Infiltration The major sources of inflow into the pavement structure are surface infiltration, water flow from high ground, groundwate r seepage, and meltwater from ice. In this case, only surface infiltration is considered in estimating the inflow as this is the predominant factor under Florida conditions. In the case of a high water table, the amount of groundwater seepage entering the permeable base may be a concern, but subsurface drainage layers are normally not installed as a corrective measure for groundwater seepage. Groundwater Seasonal fluctuations of the water table (most commonly in spring and winter) can be a significant sour ce of water (FHWA, 1992). Rarely is a pavement subsurface drainage system the most efficient way of handling water other than infiltrated free water

PAGE 80

80 (AASHTO, 1986). For this reason, groundwater will not be taken into account in the drainage analyses perfo rmed in this study. Roadway Geometry Geometric design decisions such as maximum and minimum slopes, pavement and shoulder interface, cross sections, location of filter fabrics, overlap of fabrics, joints, separation layer location, trench dimensions, and s o on are critical to pavement performance. For concrete pavements, the permeable base is generally placed directly beneath the Portland cement concrete (PCC). A separator layer with critical drainage width (W) is placed between the permeable base and the s ubgrade to prevent fines from migrating into the permeable base (Mallela et. al., 2002) The total width of drainage path ( W) can be computed by Equation 10 1. (10 1) Where: W = Width of drainage path, ft, b = Width of Surface (Number of lanes; each lane being 12 ft), ft; and, c = Distance from edge of surface to edge of base (shoulder = 3 ft). In designing the drainage of a permeable base, it is important to use the true slope and width of the permeable laye r. When the longitudinal slope (S) is combined with the pavement cross slope (S x ), the true or resultant slope (S R ) of the flow path is determined by the Equation 10 2.

PAGE 81

81 (10 2) Where: S R = Resultant Slope ft/ft, S = Longitudinal Sl ope, ft/ft; and, S X = Cross Slope, ft/ft. The resultant length of the flow pat h is calculated using Equation 10 3 shown below. (10 3) Where: L R = Resultant length of flow path through permeable base, ft; and, W = Width of permeable base, ft. Coefficient of Permeability The coefficient of permeability depends primarily on the characteristics of the permeable base materials. The most significant properties affecting permeability are effective grain size, D 10 porosi ty, n, and percent passing the No. 200 sieve, P 200 (Mallela et. al., 2002) DRIP uses Equation 10 4 to approximate the relationship between permeability and grain size. (10 4) Where: k = Permeability, mm/s,

PAGE 82

82 D 10 = Effective grain size corresponding to size passing 10 percent; and, C K = Experimental Coefficient. Furthermore, DRIP uses the statistical relationship for permeability shown in Equation 10 5. (10 5) Where: n = Porosity; and, P 200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. The equations show that elimination of fines (passing No. 200 sieve) increases permeability. Porosity The void ratio or porosity of soils, though less important than grain size and soil structure, often has a substantial influence on permeability. The void ratio of a soil will also dictate the amount of fluid that can be held within the soil. The denser a soil, the lower its permeab ility and the less water it can retain (Mallela et. al., 2002) To determine the amount of water that can be removed from a soil, the effective porosity (ne) must be calculated. Effective porosity is the measure of the volume of water that can be drained b y gravity from a soil, this it can be seen to represent the yield of water to the drainage system. Porosity can be calculated from a sample usi ng Equation 10 6. (10 6) Where:

PAGE 83

83 n = Porosity, V V = Volume of Voids; and, V T = Total Vo lume of a sample (VT= 1). The effective porosity can then be calculated using the porosi ty value found above. Equation 10 7 shows this process. (10 7) Where: n e = Effective porosity d = Dry unit weight, pcf, w c = Water content of the soil after draining; and, w = Wet unit weight pcf. For certain types of materials, the effective porosity can be found using Equation 9 8. This equation takes into account the percentage of water drained from a sample. Water loss values u sed by DRIP are shown on Table 10 1. (10 8) Where: W L = Water loss content, %. Computation of Infiltrated Water Two methods have been used extensively in evaluating surface infiltration: the infiltration ratio method (Cedergren et al., 1973) and the crack infiltration method (Ridgeway, 1976). The infiltration ratio method is highly empirical and depends on both the infiltration ratio and rainfall rate. The crack infiltration method is based on the results

PAGE 84

84 of infiltration tests (FHWA, 200 2). It has been found that the infiltration is directly related to cracking. Since the crack infiltration method is more rational and is based on field measurements, it is the method that was selected in this section of the project. Crack Infiltration Method DRIP uses the equations developed by Ridgeway (1976). These equations recommend an inflow rate estimated by the water carrying capacity of a pavement crack or joint and by an estimated joint or crack length. Two methods have been used extensively in evaluating surface infiltration: the infiltration ratio method (Cedergren et al., 1973) and the crack infiltration method (Ridgeway, 1976 ). The infiltration ratio method is highly empirical and depends on both the infiltration ratio and rainfall rate. The crack infiltration method is based on the results of infiltration tests. It has been found that the infiltration is directly related to cracking. Since the crack infiltration method is more rational and is based on field measurements, it is the method tha t was selected in this research (Mallela et. al., 2002) Equation 10 uncracked pavement. Various dimensions of the pavement used in the equation are illustrated in Figure 10 1. (10 9) Where: q i = Rate of pavement infiltration, ft 3 /day/ft 2 I c = Crack infiltration rate, ft 3 /day/ft, N c = Number of longitudinal cracks, W c = Length of contributing transverse joints or cracks, ft,

PAGE 85

85 W = Width of permeable bas e, ft, C s = Spacing of contributing transverse joints or cracks, ft; and, k p = Pavement permeability, ft/day. Design of Permeable Base There are two basic concepts that DRIP uses to design permeable bases. The first is based on a steady flow capacity equal to or greater than the inflow from initial rainfall. The second is based on the selection on a specific time to obtain a specified degree of drainage for a saturated base (Mallela et. al., 2002) Steady Flow Equations 10 10 through 10 12 show the s olution for steady flow as utilized by the DRIP program. Case 1: (S 2 4q / k) < 0 (10 10) Case 2: (S 2 4q / k) > 0 (10 11) Case 3: (S 2 4q / k) = 0 (10 12)

PAGE 86

86 Where: H 1 = Depth of water at the upper end of flow path, ft, k = Permeability, ft/day, S = Slope, ft/ft, L R = Length of Drainage, ft; and, q i = Rate of uniform flow, ft 3 /d/ft 2 Time to Drain Equations 10 13 and 10 14 show the solution s for time to drain as utilized by the DRIP program. A chart relating time factor and degree of drai nage can be observed in Figure 10 2. Case 1: 0.5 U 1.0 (10 13) Case 2: 0 U 0.5 (10 14) Where: U = Percent drainage (expressed as a fraction, e.g., 1 percent = 0.01), S 1 = Slope factor = H/DS, H = Thickness of granular layer, ft, D = Width of granular layer being drained, ft, S = Slope of granular layer, ft/ft, T = Time factor = (tkH) /(n e L 2 ), hrs,

PAGE 87

87 t = Time for drainage, U, to be reached, hrs, k = Permeability of granular layer, ft/day; and, n e = Effective porosity of granular material. Materials Requirement for Permeable Base The quantification of drainage material parameters plays an important role in determining drainage capacity. Porosity and effective porosity define an aggregate coefficient of permeability is the most important in the quantification of the depth of flow (Mallela et. al., 2002) The gradation of aggregates comprising the permeable base has the greatest influence on permeability. Typical gradation sp ecifications for AASHTO No. 57 and 67 are shown in Table 10 2 The recommended minimum coefficient of permeability is 1000 ft/day for use in high type highways. The AASHTO No. 57 and AASHTO No. 67 stones, whose gradations are shown in Table 10 2 are typic ally modified with either asphalt or cement and have shown to provide better structural adequacy due to the interlocking of aggregate.

PAGE 88

88 Table 10 1 Water Loss Values Used in DRIP (Expressed in Percentages) < 2.5 Percent Fines 5 Percent Fines > 5 Percent Fines Filler Silt Clay Filler Silt Clay Filler Silt Clay Gravel 70 60 40 60 40 20 40 30 10 Sand 57 50 35 50 35 15 25 18 8 Table 10 2 Typical Unstabilized Permeable Base Gradation Aggregate Percent Passing Sieve Size 2 in 1.5 in 1 in 0.75 in 0.5 in 0.375 in No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 40 No. 50 No. 200 AASHTO #57 0 100 95 100 0 25 60 0 0 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 AASHTO #67 0 0 100 90 100 0 20 55 0 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 Note: Information compiled from a report by FHWA in 1999.

PAGE 89

89 Figure 10 1 Plan and sectional view of a concrete pavement ( FHWA, 1992 ).

PAGE 90

90 Figure 10 2 Time to drain chart showing relationship between time factor and degree of drainage (Mallela et. al., 2002)

PAGE 91

91 CHAPTER 11 EVALUATION OF STEADY FLOW DRAINAGE ANALYSIS A sensitivity analysis was performed using the DRIP 2.0 program to evaluate the drainage characteristics of typical Florida concrete pavement designs, which are referred to as Type I and Type II design in this report. This chapter presents the results from the analyses performed. The sensitivity analysis was performed by varying (A) the crack infiltration rate to represent aging and the evolution of cracks (from 0.7 to 2.4 ft 3 /day/ft), (B) the width of draining path (from 2 to 4 lanes), (C) the pavement sl ope (from 4 to 6%), and (D) permeability of base material (from 200 to 1000 ft/day). The program computed the maximum depth of flow for the various combinations of conditions evaluated. The maximum computed depth of flow represents the minimum required b ase thickness for the drainage to be considered adequate. Type I The results of this sensitivity ana lysis are presented in Tables 11 1 through 11 5, which show the required base thickness for the various combinations of these four parameters. Type II Th e results of this sensitivity analysis are prese nted in Tables 11 6 through 11 10 which show the required base thickness for the various combinations of these four parameters. Summary of Findings An increase in crack infiltration water requires a more per meable base in order for the design to be adequate in terms of drainage.

PAGE 92

92 Increasing the slope of bo th design s would allow the drainage system to work better, as well as, reduce the permeability criterion required for the design. The sensitivity analysis performed using the software DRIP 2.0 showed a general trend, shown on Table 1 1 11. Type I From Table 11 1 it can be seen that, for a 4 lane pavement with 4% slope and with a 4 inch base, the permeability of the base material has to be at least 400 ft/day if the crack infiltration rate is 0.7 ft 2 /day. An infiltration rate of 0.7 ft 2 /day applies to a new pavement with few cracks on it. For an older pavement with more cracks on it, the actual infiltration rate would be higher. If the infiltration rate is 1.04 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 600 ft/day. If the infiltration rate is 2.4 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 1300 ft/day. From Table 11 2 it can be seen that, for a 3 lane pavement w ith 4% slope and with a 4 inch base, the permeability of the base material has to be at least 300 ft/day if the crack infiltration rate is 0.7 ft 2 /day. If the infiltration rate is 1.04 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 500 f t/day. If the infiltration rate is 2.4 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 1000 ft/day. From Table 11 3 it can be seen that, for a 2 lane pavement with 4% slope and with a 4 inch base, the required permeability of the base material is 200 ft/day if the crack infiltration rate is 0.7 ft 2 /day. If the infiltration rate is 1.04 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material is 300 ft/day. If the infiltration rate is 2.4 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 500 ft/day. From Table 11 4 it can be seen that, for a 3 lane pavement with 5% slope and with a 4 inch base, the required permeability of the base material is 300 ft/day if the

PAGE 93

93 crack infiltra tion rate is 0.7 ft 2 /day. If the infiltration rate is 1.04 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material is 400 ft/day. If the infiltration rate is 2.4 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 800 ft/day. From Table 11 5 it can be seen that, for a 3 lane pavement with 6% slope and with a 4 inch base, the required permeability of the base material is 200 ft/day if the crack infiltration rate is 0.7 ft 2 /day. If the infiltration rate is 1.04 ft 2 /day, the required permeab ility of the base material is 300 ft/day. If the infiltration rate is 2.4 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 700 ft/day. Type II From Table 11 6, it can be seen that, for a 4 lane pavement with 4% slope, the permeability of the base material has to be at least 300 ft/day if the crack infiltration rate is 0.7 ft 2 /day. An infiltration rate of 0.7 ft 2 /day applies to a new pavement with few cracks on it. For an older pavement with more cracks on it, the actual infiltration rat e would be higher. If the infiltration rate is 1.04 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 400 ft/day. If the infiltration rate is 2.4 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 800 ft/day. From Table 11 7, it can be seen that, for a 3 lane pavement with 4% slope, the permeability of the base material has to be at least 200 ft/day if the crack infiltration rate is 0.7 ft 2 /day. If the infiltration rate is 1.04 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 300 ft/day. If the infiltration rate is 2.4 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 600 ft/day. From Table 11 8, it can be seen that, for a 2 lane pavement with 4% slope, the required permeability of the base material is 200 ft/day if the crack infiltration rate is 0.7 ft 2 /day. If the infiltration rate is 1.04 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base

PAGE 94

94 material is also 200 ft/day. If the infiltration rate is 2.4 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the b ase material would be 300 ft/day. From Table 11 9, it can be seen that, for a 3 lane pavement with 5%, the required permeability of the base material is 200 ft/day if the crack infiltration rate is 0.7 ft 2 /day. If the infiltration rate is 1.04 ft 2 /day, t he required permeability of the base material is 300 ft/day. If the infiltration rate is 2.4 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material would be 500 ft/day. From Table 11 10, it can be seen that, for a 3 lane pavement with 6% slope, the required permeability of the base material is 200 ft/day if the crack infiltration rate is 0.7 ft 2 /day. If the infiltration rate is 1.04 ft 2 /day, the required permeability of the base material is 200 ft/day. If the infiltration rate is 2.4 ft 2 /day, the r equired permeability of the base material would be 500 ft/day.

PAGE 95

95 Table 11 1 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type I Design Using 4 Lanes and 4% Slope Crack Infiltration Rate (I c ) (ft 3 /day/ft) Rate Infiltration (q i ) (ft/day) Permeability of Base (ft/day) Required Thickness of Permeable Base (H min ) (inches) 0.7 0.1063 200 6.74 300 4.73 400 3.66 1.04 0.1579 200 9.43 300 6.69 400 5.21 500 4.28 600 3.63 1.38 0.2096 200 11.91 300 8.51 600 4.67 700 4.08 800 3.62 1.72 0.2612 200 14.22 300 10.23 600 5.67 700 4.96 800 4.40 900 3.96 2.06 0.3128 200 16.41 300 11.86 600 6.63 900 4.65 1000 4.24 1100 3.89 2.4 0.3644 200 18.49 300 13.42 600 7.56 900 5.32 1200 4.13 1300 3.84

PAGE 96

96 Table 11 2 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type I Design Using 3 Lanes and 4% Slope Crack Infiltration Rate (I c ) (ft 3 /day/ft) Rate Infiltration (q i ) (ft/day) Permeability of Base (ft/day) Required Thickness of Permeable Base (H min ) (inches) 0.7 0.1067 200 5.26 300 3.69 1.04 0.1585 200 7.36 300 5.22 400 4.06 500 3.34 1.38 0.2103 200 9.29 300 6.64 400 5.20 500 4.28 600 3.65 1.72 0.2621 200 11.09 300 7.98 400 6.27 500 5.18 600 4.43 700 3.87 2.06 0.3139 200 12.80 300 9.25 400 7.30 500 6.05 600 5.17 700 4.53 800 4.03 900 3.63 2.4 0.3657 200 14.42 300 10.47 400 8.28 500 6.88 600 5.90 700 5.17 800 4.60 900 4.15 1000 3.79

PAGE 97

97 Table 11 3 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type I Design Using 2 Lanes and 4% Slope Crack Infiltration Rate (I c ) (ft 3 /day/ft) Rate Infiltration (q i ) (ft/day) Permeability of Base (ft/day) Required Thickness of Permeable Base (H min ) (inches) 0.7 0.1478 200 2.97 1.04 0.2196 200 4.12 300 2.95 1.38 0.2913 200 5.17 300 3.73 1.72 0.3631 200 6.15 300 4.46 400 3.53 2.06 0.4349 200 7.06 300 5.15 400 4.09 500 3.41 2.4 0.5280 200 7.93 300 5.81 400 4.63 500 3.86

PAGE 98

98 Table 11 4 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type I Design Using 3 Lanes and 5% Slope Crack Infiltration Rate (I c ) (ft 3 /day/ft) Rate Infiltration (q i ) (ft/day) Permeability of Base (ft/d) Required Thickness of Permeable Base (H min ) (inches) 0.7 0.1067 200 4.46 300 3.32 1.04 0.1585 200 6.30 300 4.42 400 3.42 1.38 0.2103 200 8.02 300 5.66 400 4.40 500 3.60 1.72 0.2621 200 9.64 300 6.85 400 5.34 500 4.39 600 3.73 2.06 0.3139 200 11.19 300 7.99 400 6.25 500 5.14 600 4.38 700 3.82 2.4 0.3657 200 12.67 300 9.08 400 7.12 500 5.88 600 5.01 700 4.38 800 3.88

PAGE 99

99 Table 1 1 5 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Typ e I Design Using 3 Lanes and 6% Slope Crack Infiltration Rate (I c ) (ft 3 /day/ft) Rate Infiltration (q i ) (ft/day) Permeability of Base (ft/day) Required Thickness of Permeable Base (H min ) (inches) 0.7 0.1067 200 3.86 1.04 0.1585 200 5.49 300 3.82 1.38 0.2103 200 7.04 300 4.93 400 3.81 1.72 0.2621 200 8.51 300 5.99 400 4.64 500 3.80 2.06 0.3139 200 9.91 300 7.01 400 5.45 500 4.47 600 3.79 2.4 0.3657 200 11.27 300 8.00 400 6.23 500 5.12 600 4.35 700 3.78

PAGE 100

100 Table 11 6 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type II Design Using 4 Lanes and 4% Slope Crack Infiltration Rate (Ic) Rate Infiltration (qi) Permeability of Base (ft/d) Required Thickness of Permeable Base (Hmin) (inches) 0.7 0.1063 200 6.74 300 4.73 1.04 0.1579 200 9.43 300 6.69 400 5.21 1.38 0.2096 200 11.91 300 8.51 400 6.66 500 5.49 1.72 0.2612 200 14.22 300 10.23 400 8.04 500 6.64 600 5.67 2.06 0.3128 200 16.41 300 11.86 400 9.35 500 7.75 600 6.63 700 5.80 2.4 0.3644 200 18.49 300 13.42 400 10.62 500 8.82 600 7.56 700 6.62 800 5.90

PAGE 101

101 Table 1 1 7 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 4% Slope Crack Infiltration Rate (Ic) Rate Infiltration (qi) Permeability of Base (ft/d) Required Thickness of Permeable Base (Hmin) (inches) 0.7 0.1067 200 5.26 1.04 0.1585 200 7.36 300 5.22 1.38 0.2103 200 9.29 300 6.64 400 5.20 1.72 0.2621 200 11.09 300 7.98 400 6.27 500 5.18 2.06 0.3139 200 12.80 300 9.25 400 7.30 500 6.05 600 5.17 2.4 0.3657 200 14.42 300 10.47 400 8.28 500 6.88 600 5.90 Table 11 8 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type II Design Using 2 Lanes and 4% Slope Crack Infiltration Rate (Ic) Rate Infiltration (qi) Permeability of Base (ft/d) Required Thickness of Permeable Base (Hmin) (inches) 0.7 0.1478 200 2.97 1.04 0.2196 200 4.12 1.38 0.2913 200 5.17 1.72 0.3631 200 6.15 300 4.46 2.06 0.4349 200 7.06 300 5.15 2.4 0.5280 200 7.93 300 5.81

PAGE 102

102 Table 11 9 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 5% Slope Crack Infiltration Rate (Ic) Rate Infiltration (qi) Permeability of Base (ft/d) Required Thickness of Permeable Base (Hmin) (inches) 0.7 0.1067 200 4.46 1.04 0.1585 200 6.30 300 4.42 1.38 0.2103 200 8.02 300 5.66 1.72 0.2621 200 9.64 300 6.85 400 5.34 2.06 0.3139 200 11.19 300 7.99 400 6.25 500 5.14 2.4 0.3657 200 12.67 300 9.08 400 7.12 500 5.88 Table 11 10 Results of Steady Flow Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 6% Slope Crack Infiltration Rate (Ic) Rate Infiltration (qi) Permeability of Base (ft/d) Required Thickness of Permeable Base (Hmin) (inches) 0.7 0.1067 200 3.86 1.04 0.1585 200 5.49 1.38 0.2103 200 7.04 300 4.93 1.72 0.2621 200 8.51 300 5.99 2.06 0.3139 200 9.91 300 7.01 400 5.45 2.4 0.3657 200 11.27 300 8.00 400 6.23

PAGE 103

103 Table 11 11 General Results and Trends of Steady Flow Drainage Analysis Condition Drainage Performance Base Permeability Increases Increases Slope Increases Increases Infiltration Rate (Age) Increases Decreases Number of Lanes Decreases Increases

PAGE 104

104 CHAPTER 12 EVALUATION OF T IME TO DRAIN ANALYSIS A sensitivity analysis was performed using the DRIP 2.0 program to evaluate the time to drain drainage characteristics of typical Florida concrete pavement designs, which are referred to as Type I and Type II design in this report. This chapter presents th e results from the analyses performed. The sensitivity analysis was performed by varying (A) the width of draining path (from 2 to 4 lanes), (B) the pavement slope (from 4 to 6%), and (C) permeability of base material (ft/day). The program computed the t ime to drain for the various combinations of conditions evaluated. The time to drain in hours represents a specific time to obtain 50% drainage for a saturated base layer. FHWA rates the quality of drainage based on a scale that ranges from very poor (dra ins in more than 1 month) to excellent (drains in less than 2 hours). Type I The results of this sensitivity analysis are presented in Tables 1 2 1 through 1 2 9, which show the required base thickness for the various combinations of these four parameters. Type II The results of this sensitivity analysis are presented in Tables 1 2 10 through 1 2 18 which show the required base thickness for the various combinations of these four parameters.

PAGE 105

105 Summary of Findings An increase in crack infiltration water require s a more permeable base in order for the design to be adequate in terms of drainage. Increasing the slope of both designs, would allow the drainage system to work better, as well as, reduce the permeability criterion required for the design. I t was observe d that the effect of the coefficient of permeability is inversely proportional to the time to drain. The more permeable the layer the faster the base material will drain. The analysis performed in this report was focused on finding a design that allowed f or the draining of a saturated base in less than 2 hours. Draining in less than 2 hours is achievable as seen in results, yet the high values required of permeability may not be feasible for Type I and Type II designs. As a result, time to drain values of less than 4 hours should be considered as adequate for drainage. The sensitivity analysis performed using the software DRIP 2.0 showed a general trend, shown on Table 1 2 19. Type I From Tables 1 2 1 to Tables 1 2 3, it can be seen that for a 4 lane pavement, the permeability of the base material as to be at least 2400 ft/day when a 4% slope is implemented. As the slope is increased, the required permeability of the base layer decreases. If the slope is increased to 5%, the required permeability of th e base material would be 1900 ft/day. If the slope is 6%, the required permeability of the base material would be 1600 ft/day. From Tables 1 2 4 to Tables 1 2 6, it can be seen that for a 3 lane pavement, the permeability of the base material as to be at lea st 1700 ft/day when a 4% slope is implemented. As the slope is increased, the required permeability of the base layer

PAGE 106

106 decreases. If the slope is increased to 5%, the required permeability of the base material would be 1400 ft/day. If the slope is 6%, the r equired permeability of the base material would be 1200 ft/day. From Tables 1 2 7 to Tables 1 2 9, it can be seen that for a 2 lane pavement, the permeability of the base material as to be at least 1200 ft/day when a 4% slope is implemented. As the slope is increased, the required permeability of the base layer decreases. If the slope is increased to 5%, the required permeability of the base material would be 1000 ft/day. If the slope is 6%, the required permeability of the base material would be 900 ft/day. Type II From Tables 1 2 10 to Tables 1 2 12, it can be seen that for a 4 lane pavement, the permeability of the base material as to be at least 1200 ft/day when a 4% slope is implemented. As the slope is increased, the required permeability of the base layer decreases. If the slope is increased to 5%, the required permeability of the base material would be 1100 ft/day. If the slope is 6%, the required permeability of the base material would be 1000 ft/day. From Tables 1 2 13 to Tables 1 2 15, it can be seen tha t for a 3 lane pavement, the permeability of the base material as to be at least 800 ft/day when a 4% slope is implemented. As the slope is increased, the required permeability of the base layer decreases. If the slope is increased to 5%, the required perm eability of the base material would be 800 ft/day. If the slope is 6%, the required permeability of the base material would be 700 ft/day. From Tables 1 2 16 to Tables 1 2 18, it can be seen that for a 4 lane pavement, the permeability of the base material a s to be at least 500 ft/day when a 4% slope is

PAGE 107

107 implemented. As the slope is increased, the required permeability of the base layer decreases. If the slope is increased to 5%, the required permeability of the base material would be 500 ft/day. If the slope is 6%, the required permeability of the base material would be 400 ft/day.

PAGE 108

108 Table 1 2 1 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 4 Lanes and 4% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 22.30 Good 300 14.86 Good 400 11.15 Good 500 8.92 Good 600 7.43 Good 700 6.37 Good 800 5.57 Good 900 4.95 Good 1000 4.46 Good 1500 2.97 Good 2000 2.23 Good 2200 2.03 Good 24 00 1.94 Excellent Table 1 2 2 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 4 Lanes and 5% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 18.19 Good 300 12.12 Good 400 9.09 Good 500 7.27 Good 600 6.06 Good 700 5.20 Good 800 4.55 Good 900 4.04 Good 1000 3.64 Good 1500 2.42 Good 1900 1.91 Excellent

PAGE 109

109 Table 1 2 3 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 4 Lanes and 6% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 15.35 Good 300 10.23 Good 400 7.67 Good 500 6.14 Good 600 5.12 Good 700 4.38 Good 800 3.84 Good 900 3.41 Good 1000 3.07 Good 1500 2.05 Good 1600 1.92 Excellent Table 1 2 4 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 3 Lanes and 4% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 16.92 Good 300 11.28 Good 400 8.46 Good 500 6.77 Good 600 5.64 Good 700 4.83 Good 800 4.23 Good 900 3.76 Good 1000 3.38 Good 1500 2.26 Good 1700 1.99 Excellent

PAGE 110

110 Table 1 2 5 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 3 Lanes and 5% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 13.85 Good 300 9.23 Good 400 6.92 Good 500 5.54 Good 600 4.62 Good 700 3.96 Good 800 3.46 Good 900 3.08 Good 1000 2.77 Good 1400 1.98 Excellent Table 1 2 6 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 3 Lanes and 6% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 11.72 Good 300 7.81 Good 400 5.86 Good 500 4.69 Good 600 3.91 Good 700 3.35 Good 800 2.93 Good 900 2.60 Good 1000 2.34 Good 1200 1.95 Excellent

PAGE 111

111 Table 1 2 7 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 2 Lanes and 4% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 11.60 Good 300 7.73 Good 400 5.80 Good 500 4.64 Good 600 3.87 Good 700 3.31 Good 800 2.90 Good 900 2.58 Good 1000 2.32 Good 1200 1.93 Excellent Table 1 2 8 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 2 lanes and 5% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 9.55 Good 300 6.37 Good 400 4.78 Good 500 3.82 Good 600 3.18 Good 700 2.73 Good 800 2.39 Good 900 2.12 Good 1000 1.91 Excellent Table 1 2 9 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type I Design Using 2 Lanes and 6% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 8.11 Good 300 5.41 Good 400 4.06 Good 500 3.25 Good 600 2.70 Good 700 2.32 Good 800 2.03 Good 900 1.80 Excellent

PAGE 112

112 Table 1 2 10 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on T ype II Design Using 4 Lanes and 4% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 11.39 Good 300 7.59 Good 400 5.70 Good 500 4.56 Good 600 3.80 Good 700 3.25 Good 800 2.85 Good 900 2.53 Good 1000 2.28 Good 1100 2.07 Good 1200 1.90 Excellent Table 1 2 11 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on T ype II Design Using 4 Lanes and 5% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 10.07 Good 300 6.72 Good 400 5.04 Good 500 4.03 Good 600 3.36 Good 700 2.88 Good 800 2.52 Good 900 2.24 Good 1000 2.01 Good 1100 1.83 Excellent

PAGE 113

113 Table 1 2 12 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on T ype II Design Using 4 Lanes and 6% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 9.04 Good 300 6.02 Good 400 4.52 Good 500 3.61 Good 600 3.01 Good 700 2.58 Good 800 2.26 Good 900 2.01 Good 1000 1.81 Excellent Table 1 2 13 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 4% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 7.89 Good 300 5.26 Good 400 3.95 Good 500 3.16 Good 600 2.63 Good 700 2.25 Good 800 1.97 Excellent Table 1 2 14 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 5% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 7.06 Good 300 4.71 Good 400 3.53 Good 500 2.83 Good 600 2.35 Good 700 2.02 Good 800 1.77 Excellent

PAGE 114

114 Table 1 2 15 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 3 Lanes and 6% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 6.04 Good 300 4.27 Good 400 3.20 Good 500 2.56 Good 600 2.13 Good 700 1.83 Excellent Table 1 2 16 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 2 Lanes and 4% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 4.66 Good 300 3.11 Good 400 2.33 Good 500 1.87 Excellent Table 1 2 17 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 2 Lanes and 5% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 4.24 Good 300 2.83 Good 400 2.12 Good 500 1.70 Excellent Table 1 2 18 Results of Time to Drain Analysis on Type II Design Using 2 Lanes and 6% Slope Permeability of Base (ft/d) Time to Drain (hr) Quality of Drainage 200 3.89 Good 300 2.60 Good 400 1.95 Excellent

PAGE 115

115 Table 1 2 19 General Results and Trends of Time to Drain Drainage Analysis Condition Drainage Performance Effective Porosity Increases Decreases Base Permeability Increases Increases Resultant Slope Increases Increases Number of Lanes Decreases Increases Base Layer Thickness Increases Increases

PAGE 116

116 CHAPTER 13 CONCLUSION S An extensive study of PCC long life pavements was executed to develop designs of concrete pavements with expected service life of over 50 years. Under the study, two designs were studied, Type I and Type II. Several parameters were studied using MEPDG to determine their influence on the distress of the pavements. Also, two drainage methods were implemented on the designs using DRIP. The conclusions and recommendations arrived at from the study are presented in this chapter Findings A summary of the major findings from the study are: 1. Type I and Type II designs as shown in figure 13 1 can be adequate for 50 year design is the concrete slab thickness is adequate (at least 13 inches) and concrete of adequate properties is used. 2. For concrete with the same design flexural strength, Brooksville limestone was shown to have the best predi cted performance, followed by Calera limestone and river gravel a s the worst. The better performance of the Brooksville aggregate is possibly due to the relatively low elastic modulus and low coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete made with Brooksvil le limestone. 3. The type of base material and the stiffness of the base material appear to have no significant effect on the predicted performance according to the results of the MEPDG analysi s. 4. Coefficient of thermal expansion is the PCC property that se ems to be the most important parameter affecting pavement distress. A low CTE is fundamental. 5. To have adequate drainage, the permeability of the base material must be adequate. The required permeability is a function of base thickness, number of lanes and cross slope of the pavement. 6. Along with crack infiltration time to drain values less than 4 hours should be considered adequate for drainage.

PAGE 117

117 7. Increasing the slope of Type I and Type II designs, would allow the drainage system to work better, as well as, reduce the time to drain required for the design s 8. I t was observed that the effect of the coefficient of permeability is inversely proportional to the time to drain. The more permeable the layer the faster the base material will drain 9. Decreasing the num ber of lanes of Type I and Type II designs, would allow the drainage system to work better, as well as, reduce the permeability criterion required for the designs. Conclusions and Recommendations 1. Type I and Type II designs are shown on Figure 13 1. For Ty pe I and Type II the following recommendations are made: Slab thickness 13 inches Required properties of concrete Flexural Strength 700 psi Elastic Modulus 4 .8 x 10 6 psi Coefficient of Thermal Energy 5.7 x 10 6 in/in/F To use a concrete that does not meet the above criteria, a MEPDG analysis must be performed using the measure d properties of the concrete. 2. For Type I and Type II the following recommendations for drainage can be seen in Table s 13 1 and 13 2 In terms of drainage, better per formance could be achieved by increasing both the permeability of the base layer as well as the cross slope of the pavement. 3. The steady flow and time to drain drainage methods should be complementary used to determine the required permeability of a drai nage layer. 4. To better performance, CTE of PCC slab must be lowered. Joint spacing lower than 15 feet is recommended. Recommendations for Further Research The following are recommended for further research: 1. Continuously reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP) should be investigated as another alternative for long life concrete pavements.

PAGE 118

118 2. Experimental research must be performed to determine the influence of a long life PCC pavement with low elastic modulus and a low coefficient of thermal expansion. 3. Variation of modulus of rupture in concrete pavements should be experimentally researched. 4. The effects of maintenance of drainage systems should be investigated. 5. Use of Florida aggregate in drainage layer should be investigated. More research is necessary to find feas ible ways to make aggregate more permeable. 6. The use of thermally conductive materials should be investigated in concrete. Lowering the CTE of concrete results in better pavement results. 7. Use of MEPDG should be investigated; more calibration and better rel iability with real life results should be developed.

PAGE 119

119 Table 13 1 Required P ermeability of Base Material for Type I Design Number of Lanes 2 3 4 Cross Slope 4% 600 900 1200 5% 500 700 1000 6% 500 600 800 Table 13 2 Required Permeabilit y of Base Material for Type II D esign Number of Lanes 2 3 4 Cross Slope 4% 300 400 600 5% 300 400 600 6% 200 400 500

PAGE 120

120 Type I Type II Figure 13 1 Proposed long life concrete pavement designs suitable for Florida

PAGE 121

121 A PPENDIX A LITERATURE REVIEW ON LONG LIFE CONCRETE PAVEME NTS Long Life Concrete Pavement Design Practices by Illinois DOT Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) began researching for longer life concrete Accelerated testing to determine optimal structural design features for CRCP (collaborating with the University of Illinois). Refi ning structure design features, concrete material requirements and construction process pertaining to longer life design. Constructing several projects to determine feasibility of longer life pavements. As a result, IDOT concrete pavement requirements were changed to include aggregate and construction requirements that achieve LLCP. More specifically, construction specifications were altered to include rigorous concrete material requirements to prevent freeze/thaw in harsh conditions. Summary of requirement changes are highlighted in Table 1 (Winkelman, 2006).

PAGE 122

122 Table 1. Changes in Illinois Specifications to Achieve Long life Concrete Pavements (Winkelman, 2006) Item Long Life Pavement Specification Thickness design Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP): IDOT developed mechanistic empirical design procedure Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP): IDOT modified AASHTO process. Design Life: 30 to 40 years Typical p avement thickness: o 250 mm (10 in) for JPCP o 350 mm (14 in) for CRCP Typical structure Up to 350 mm (14 in) CRCP slab. 100 to 150 mm (4 to 6 in) stabilized base (hot mix asphalt stabilized base for CRCP) 300 mm (12 in.) well graded aggregate subbase (top 75 mm [3 in] maximize size of 40 mm [1.5 in.]; bottom 230 mm [9 in.] maximum size of 200 mm [8 in.] aggregate) Compacted subgrade Tie bars Use of tie bars at centerline and at lane to shoulder longitudinal joints. Use of 23 mm (1 in.) (#8) steel bars, 750 mm (30 in.) long, spaced at 600 mm (24 in.). Aggregate Requirements Freeze thaw expansion (using IDOT modified ASTM C666) o 0.0040% for 30 year design and 0.025% for 40 year design (in the past, 0.060%) Alkali silica reactivity (ASR) susceptibility (by ASTM C 1260) (applies only for 40 year designs): o If the expansion is greater than 0.15 limit the equivalent alkalis of the cement source to not greater than 0.6%. When fly ash is used, the available alkali as Na 2 0 shall be a maximum of 1.5% for the fly ash source. o If any blended cement is used, the mortar expansion at 14 days and 8 weeks shall be a maximum of 0.02% and 0.06% respectively. Construction requirements Concrete mixture temperature: 10 to 32 C (50 to 90 F). If the temperature exceeds 32 C (90 F), concrete production will cease until appropriate corrective action is taken. Slipform paving machine is required to be equipped with internal vibration and vibration monitoring device. Curing: Type II (white pigmented) curing compound must be applied to the pavement surface and edge faces within 10 minutes of concrete finishing and tining. At least 7 days of curing are required before opening the pavement to any construction or regular traffic. Construction quality Surface texture provisions for tining (for safety and low tire pavement n oise): o Use of variable spacing between 17 and 54 mm (0.7 and 2.15 in.). o Use of 10 degree skewed tining (for the sections with speed limit of 90 km/h [55 mi/h] or higher. o Use of perpendicular tining (for the sections with lower speed limits). Surface profile: Profile Index (PI) using California Profilograph (0 in. blanking band). o Grinding is required if the average PI value is above 760 mm/km (48in./mi) for major highways. Pavement warranty: covers pavement distress up to 5 years on demonstration proje cts only. IDOT currently does not use warranties.

PAGE 123

123 Long Life Concrete Pavement Design Practices by Minnesota DOT The Minnesota DOT has adopted Long Life Concrete Pavement (LLCP) designs for high volume, urban highways since 2000. The current design feat ures and construction specifications for the LLCP are presented in Table 2 (Burnham et al., 2006). Table 2. Minnesota Specifications for Long Life Concrete Pavements (Burnham et al. 2006) Item Present Standard Design Life Design Long Life concrete pavements (LLCP) for 60 years. Cross section Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP) slab thickness: 290 to 340 mm (11.5 to 13.5 in.), depending on truck traffic. Base: 75 mm to 200 mm (3 to 8in.) dense graded granular base (MnDOT CL 5 material) or 125 mm (5 in.) open graded aggregate base on top of 100 mm (4 in.) CL 5 Subbase: 300 to 1200 mm (12 to 48 in.) select granular (frost resistant) subbase. Joint Design Joint spacing: 4.6 m (15 ft). All transverse joints are doweled. Dowel bar Diameter: 38 to 45 mm (38 mm typical) (1.50 to 1.75 in. [1.50 in. typical]). Length: 380 to 450 mm (380 mm typical)(15 to 18 in. [15 in. typical]). Spacing: 300 mm (12 in.). Bar material: must be corrosion resistant (stainless steel solid, clad pipe, or tube; plastic coa ted steel; zinc clad steel). Surface texture Astroturf or broom drag. Requires 1 mm (0.04 in.) average depth in sand patch test (ASTM E 965). Note: Transverse tining is not used due to noise concerns. Alkali silica reactivity (ASR) Fine aggregates require tests for ASR potential by ASTM C1260. Expansion to be 0.15% or less. Reject if the expansion is greater than 0.3% Mitigation is required by using Granulated ground Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) or class C fly ash when the expansion is between 0.15 an d 0.30% o 0.15 to 0.25%: GGBFS 35% or fly ash 20% o 0.25 to 0.30%: GGBFS 35% or fly ash 30% Aggregate gradation Combined gradation based on 8 to 18 specification: percentage retained in all specified sleeves should be between 8% and 18%, except finer than no. 30, and the crassest sieve. Concrete permeability Use of supplementary cementitious materials (GGBFS or class C fly ash) is required to lower the permeability of concrete. Specification requires rapid chlorine ion permeability test value of 2500 coulo mb or less at 28 days, by compounds at later ages. Air content LLCP concrete mixture: 0.7 1.5%. o Increased air content for possible loss of entrained air due to over vibration or in filling with secondary compounds at later ages. Water to cement (W/C) 0.40 or less. Curing A poly alpha methylstyrene membrane cure is used under normal weather conditions. No construction or general public traffic is allowed for 7 days or until the flexural strength of concrete reaches 2.4 MPa (350 lb/in 2 ). Construction quality Requires monitoring the vibrators during paving. Paver track speed and vibration operating frequencies must be reported daily. Initial Profile Index values, using 5 mm (0.2 in.) blanking band, greater than 126 mm/km (8 in./mi) require corrective a ction, generally diamond grinding.

PAGE 124

124 Long Life Concrete Pavement Design Practices by Texas DOT The Texas DOT uses Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) as the primary LLCP. The current standards for LLCP used by Texas DOT are presented in Table 3 (Won et al. 2006). Table 3. Texas Standards for Long Life Concrete Pavements (Won et al. 2006) Items Present Standards Thickness Use of AASHTO 1989 pavement design guide Use of reliability value of 95%. Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement design (CRCP): o Minimum slab thickness studied: 203 mm (8 in.). Stabilized bases Two types are used: o 150 mm (6 in.) cement stabilized base with 25 mm (1 in.) asphalt bond breaker layer on top. o 100 mm (4 in.) asphalt stabilized base. Longitudinal steel design Use of higher steel content: generally results in more cracks but at shorter spacing and are tight. Requires staggering splices: to avoid weak spots (less than 1/3 of the splices within a 0.6 m (2 ft) length of each lane of the pavement). Percen t Steel Satisfactory performance between 0.6 and 0.8% steel. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) Limits the CTE of concrete to 10.7 microstrain per C (6.0 microstrain per F). Construction Joint Past practice for placing additional rebars of same size in a line caused weak spots at the end of the rebars. Revised design details so that the ends of rebars will stagger. Smoothness Portland Cement Concrete: o Testing device: High Speed or Lightweight Inertial Profiler o Smoothness index: IRI o Can be incen tive and disincentive Long Life Concrete Pavement Design Practices by Washington State DOT While the concrete pavements in Washington State were originally designed for 20 years design life, about 38 percent of concrete pavements in the state were over 35 years old with little or no maintenance or rehabilitation as of 2006 (Muench et al. 2006). Based on the experience on concrete pavement performance over the past 40 years, Washington Sate DOT has modified the design practices for concrete pavements to achieve a design life of 50 years. The modifications of design practices for LLCP in Washington State are summarized in Table 4.

PAGE 125

125 Table 4. Modifications of Washington State Practices for Long Life Concrete Pavements (Muench et al. 2006) Item Present Sta ndards Design Life Increased to 50 years Thickness Design Typical: 305 mm (12 in.) Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) over 60 to 100 mm (2.4 to 4.0 in.) dense graded Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) base over 60 to 100 mm (2.4 to 4.0 in.) crushed stone subbase (Top 25 mm [1 in.] of PCC is considered as sacrificial for future grinding to restore profile and texture) Design basis: 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavements Base Materials For high volume truck routes, requires 100 mm (4 in.) dense graded HMA base o n aggregate subbase to limit base deflection, pumping, and joint faulting. Asphalt treated base: minimized use due to its potential for stripping Cement treated base: not allowed due to increased potential for slab cracking and higher risks of pumping. Joint Design 4.6 m (15 ft.) spacing Requires dowel bars Saw cut width: 5 to 8 mm (0.2 to 0.3 in.) single cut. Joint Sealant: hot poured sealant. Tie bars: No. 5 bars, 750 mm (30 in.) long, 900 mm (36 in.) spacing. Dowel Bars Dowel bar types (depending on the risk of corrosion): o Stainless steel: stainless steel clad, stainless steel sleeves with an epoxy coated insert, MMFX2 steel bars. o Zinc clad steel bars o Epoxy coated: traditional black steel bar with epoxy coating (ASTM A 943) o Bar dimension: 38 mm (1. 5 in.) diameter, 450 mm (18 in.) length, 300 mm (12 in.) spacing o 8 dowels for non truck and HOV lanes (4 dowels in each wheel path) and 12 dowels for truck lanes. Outside Shoulder 4.3 m wide slab (14 ft.) with tied PCC of HMA shoulder 3.7 m wide slab (12 ft.) with tied and doweled PCC shoulder Mix Design Use of combined aggregate gradation with maximum size of 20 mm (0.8 in.) Contractor developed concrete mixtures Use of Class F fly ash: max 35% by weight of total cementitious materials Use of Granulated Ground Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and blended cements. Concrete Quality Traffic opening compressive strength: 17 MPa (2500 lb/in 2 ) by cylinder test or maturity method. Surface Texture Transverse tining: 3.2 to 4.8 mm (0.13 to 0.19 in.) tine d epth and width, 12.5 to 32.0 mm (0.50 to 1.25 in.) variable spacing. Studded tire mitigation Research to minimize studded tire wear and mitigate its effect is ongoing. Features include: combined aggregate gradation, higher flexural strength, use of higher cement and slag contents, and use of paste hardening additives. Smoothness Specification testing device: California Profilograph Smoothness index: PrI Blanking band: 0.2 in.

PAGE 126

126 Other Examples of Long Life Concrete Pavements Highway 41, Mlltal, Austria ( Pichler 2006) An example of a well constructed pavement. General Information Type of pavement JPCP Design life of the pavement 30 yrs Year of construction/ Traffic Opening Date 1956 Present Condition Pavement is generally in good condition. Some longitudinal cracking and D cracking have been observed. Traffic Information B etween 3325 and 6140 average daily vehicles (about 5% heavy vehicles) Subbase / Base Type of base material Stabilized Sand Base thickness 2 in (5 cm ) Subgrade Frost resistant Pavement Properties Slab layer thickness 7.8 in (20 cm) Joint spacing 26.3 32.8 ft (8 10 m) Slab width N/A Transverse joint angle Rectangular Load Transfer system (dowels / interlock) dowels D owel bar dimensions cm) Concrete Mixture Properties Air Content 2% Additional Information : Paper membrane was used for curing of concrete. Figure 1 Typical slab structure of Highway 41 in Austria.

PAGE 127

127 Superior St 2 nd St, Webster, Iowa ( Cable et al., 2004). Example of a pa vement with a strong base and good concrete quality General Information Type of pavement JPCP Design life of the pavement 20 yrs Year of construction/ Traffic Opening Date 1973 Present Condition Low percentage of D cracking was observed. Traffic Information Current average daily traffic (ADT): 11700 Subbase / Base Type of base material Crushed stone Base thickness 4 in (10.16 cm) Pavement Properties Slab layer thi ckness 8 in (20.3 cm) Joint spacing 20 ft (6.1 m) Slab width 13.25 ft (4.03 m) Transverse joint angle Rectangular Load Transfer system (dowels / interlock) dowels Dowel bar dimensions Tie bar spacing 30 in (76.2 cm) Tie bar dimensions Concrete Mixture Properties W/C 0.43 0.49 Air Content 6% Water Content 246 (lb/cy) Cement 573 (lb/cy) Figure 2 Typical slab structure of Superior St. in Iowa.

PAGE 128

128 Highway 427, Toronto, Canada (PIARC 2009) An example of a well constructed pavement which outperformed its expected design life. General Information Type of pavement JPCP Design life of the pavement 30 yrs Year of construction/ Traffic Opening Date 1968 Present Condition E xperienced some joint stepping, joint failures, joint cracking and distortion. 50% of the pavement section had friction numbers ranging from fair to poor. The remaining 50% of the section was performing in the good to very good ran ge. Traffic Information Since the original construction, there were approximately 58 million Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) in the express lanes before it was rehabilitated. Truck percentage Was of 12%. Drainage Drainage in this section is provided through subdrains and an urban cross section which includes curb and gutter. Subbase / Base Type of base material Cement treated Base thickness 6 in (15.2 cm) Subgrade Subgrade soil had a Modulus of subgrade reaction 115 pci (31 MPa/m). Pavement Properties Slab layer thickness 9 in (22.9 cm) Pavement joint spacing 20 ft (6.1 m) Transverse joint angle Rectangular Load Transfer system (dowels / interlock) dowels Maintenance Performed After 34 years of operation, maintenance was performed in 20 02 to restore the ride quality. Maintenance activities on this highway have included shoulder rehabilitation, diamond grinding to restore pavement friction on certain sections and some areas have machine and manua l patching.

PAGE 129

129 Figure 3 Typical slab structure of Highway 427 in Canada.

PAGE 130

13 0 B47 Highway, Germany (U.S. TECH, 1992) Example of a good performing composite pavement constructed wet on wet with good drainage features. General Information Type of pavement JPCP Design life of the pavement 30 yrs Year of construction/ Traffic Opening Date 1965 Present Condition Small percentage of cracking has been observed Traffic Information Greater than 3 millions accumulated 10 metric tons (22 kip) ESAL Specifically, the average ADT is of 40,000 with 25% heavy trucks. The legal maximum single axle load was of 10 tons (22,000 lbs) when highway was designed. Drainage Consists of a porous concrete layer beneath the shoulder that provides a flow channel to a longitudinal subdrain. This empties at regular intervals into a lateral pipe which goes directly to a longitudinal closed drainage system. Subbase / Base Type of base material Lean Concrete Base thickness 4 in (10 cm) Pavement Properties Slab layer thickness 9 in (22.9 cm) Slab width 12.3 ft (3.75 m) Widened Slab into shoulder 1.6 ft (0.48 m) Shoulder design Tied concrete Load Transfer system (dowels / interlock) Plastic coated dowels D owel Spacing uneven Mixture Properties Wet on wet construction creating good bonding and controlled cracking. Joints N otching of the base was immediately performed upon placement specifically located at the exact position where future transverse and longitudinal joints of the concrete slab are to be sawed (U.S. Tech, 1992). This process was performed to localize the cracks on a specific direction. Transverse joint angle Rectangular Joint spacing 16.4 ft (5 m) Saw depth 0.25 0.3 of slab thickness Joint sealant Compression seal Additional Information Surface texture Light longitudinal brush (Burlap drag)

PAGE 131

131 Figure 4 German jointed plain concrete pavement design (U.S. T ECH 1992).

PAGE 132

132 Avenue de Lorraine, Belgi um (Gilles and Jasienski, 2004) Example of an old pavement that has performed well due to the additional thickness at the edge General Information Type of pavement JPCP Design life of the pavement N/A Year of construction/ Traffic Opening Date 1925 Present Condition Pavement was resurfaced in 2003 Traffic Information Information not available Drainage Information not available Subbase / Base Type of base material Crushed stone Base thickness N/A Pavement Properties Slab layer thickness 5 in (12 cm) 2 in thicker (5 cm) at edges Pavement joint spacing 13 16 ft (3.96 4.88m) Transverse joint angle Rectangular Load Transfer system (dowels / interlock) Aggregate interlock Maintenance Performed Road was rehabilitate d using a concrete overlay in 2003 due to rocking of slabs as well as the formation of steps and faulting Erosion of fine particles was seen and expansion joints were large and uncomfortable. Figure 5 Cross section of the Lorraine Avenue design. (Gilles and Jasienski, 2004)

PAGE 133

133 A1 Highway, Austria ( H all et al., 2007) Example of a good pavement incorporating permeable asphalt base with minimal stud tire damage General Information Type of pavement JPCP Design life of the pavement 30 y rs Year of construction/ Traffic Opening Date 1970 Present Condition Studded tire damage was seen due to heavy traffic loading. Traffic Information 18 to 40 million design axle loads Drainage Longitudinal subdrains connected to lateral pipes and a closed drainage system Subbase / Base Type of subbase material Cement stabilized Subbase thickness 8 in (20 cm) Type of base material Permeable Bitumen Base thickness 2 in (5 cm) Pavement Properties Slab layer thickness 10 in (25 cm) Upper wet on wet 1.5 in (4cm) Lower wet on wet 8.5 in (21 cm) Pavement joint spacing 18 20 ft (5.5 6.1 m) Slab width Transverse joint angle Rectangular Shoulder design tied concrete Load Trans fer system (dowels / interlock) dowels Dowel b ar dimensions X 5 1 cm) Dowel Spacing Spaced closely on wheel paths. Mixture Properties (wet on wet) The lower concrete course is 8.3 in (21 cm) thick, made with virgin or r ecycled marginal concrete (1.25 in [32 mm] maximum aggregate size). The upper course is 1.5 in (4 cm) thick and contains smaller aggregate with high wear resistance (US Tech, 1992). Compressive strength is specified to be more than 5075 psi (35 Mpa) for th e lower layer and more than 5800 psi (40 MPa ) for the top layer after 28 day curing (US Tech, 1992). Flexural strength was more than 708 psi (5.5 MPa) on 4.7 by 4.7 by 14 in beams.

PAGE 134

134 Figure 6 Cross section of Austrian JPCP construction (Hall et. al., 2007)

PAGE 135

135 A6 Freeway, Paris, France ( U.S. TECH, 1992) Example of the importance of efficient load transferring systems in long life concrete pavements General Information Type of pavement JPCP Design life of the pavement N/A Year of construction / Traffic Opening Date 1978 Present Condition Slab faulting and stepping has been observed. Traffic Information Less than 1500 trucks per day. Drainage Geotextile drain placed over subgrade Subbase / Base Type of base material Erosion resistant lean concrete Base thickness 6 in (15.2 cm) Drainage Longitudinal drainage Along edge joint. Pavement Properties Slab layer thickness 9 in (22.9 cm) Joint spacing 15 (4.5 m) Slab width 12 ft (3.7 m) Transverse join t angle Skewed 1:6 counterclockwise Load Transfer system (dowels / interlock) aggregate interlock Mixture Properties Air Content 5% Modulus of Rupture (56 days) 754 psi (5.3 MPa) Maintenance Performed Lack of joint load transfe r led to faulting and cracking. Problem was fixed using load transferring devices developed by the LCPC Laboratories with Freyssinet (Seen in Figure 7). Using the load transfer device showed success in restoring load transfer from less than 50% to over 90 % i n certain cases (US Tech, 1992). Figure 7 LCPC/Freyssinet French load transfer device (U S T ECH 1992).

PAGE 136

136 Figure 8 Typical slab design in A6 Freeway located in France.

PAGE 137

137 Airport Ring Road, Clay, Iowa ( Cable et al., 2004) Example of a well performing concrete city street General Information Type of pavement JPCP Design life of the pavement 20 yrs Year of construction/ Traffic Opening Date 1973 Present Condition Joints are performing well and good ride quality is observed. Tra ffic Information North 330, East 1550 ADDT 15% trucks Subbase / Base Type of base Stabilized soil Base thickness 8 in (20.32 cm) Pavement Properties Slab layer thickness 7 in (17.78 cm) Joint spacing 20 ft (6.1 m) Slab width 14 ft Transverse joint angle Rectangular Shoulder design natural soil Load Transfer system (dowels / interlock) dowels Dowel bar dimensions Dowel Spacing 12 ft (3.66 m) Mixture Properties W/C 0.53 Air Con tent 5.5 to 6% Cement 479 (lb/cy) Maintenance Performed Longitudinal cracking at mid panel and wheel paths. Maintenance has been performed on these sections but not specified. Figure 9 Typical slab design located at Airport Ring Rd. in Iowa

PAGE 138

138 A PPENDIX B FDOT GIS AADTT DATA (TOP 300) No. DIST COSITE ROADWAY DESC_FRM DESC_TO TruckAADT 1 4 86280 7 86095000 Bridge No 860535 US 1/SR 5 SB 22110 2 4 93219 2 93220000 Bridge No 930189 Bridge No 930499 21625 3 4 86249 3 86070000 86095000/EB I595 SR 736/DAVIE BLVD 20468 4 5 92032 1 92130000 RAMP 92473001 N/A 20193 5 5 92032 1 92130000 Bridge No 920094 RAMP 92473001 20193 6 4 86245 8 86070000 Bridge No 860554 86095000/EB I595 18972 7 4 86249 8 86070000 SR 736/DAVIE BLVD SR 842/BROWARD BLVD 18088 8 4 86245 4 86070000 Bridge No 860530 Bridge No 860576 17952 9 4 86250 0 86070000 SR 838/SUNRISE BLVD Bridge No 860117 17816 10 4 86245 6 86070000 Bridge No 860579 Bridge No 860554 17408 11 4 86239 4 86070000 Bridge No 860531 Bridge No 860530 17340 12 4 86245 5 86070000 Bridge No 860576 Bridge No 860579 17204 13 4 86250 1 86070000 Bridge No 860117 Bridge No 860130 17160 14 4 86250 7 86070000 Bridge No 860124 PALM BCH. CO. LN. 16767 15 4 93219 9 93220000 N/A 10TH AVE N 16384 16 4 86248 7 86070000 DADE CO. LN. Bridge No 860529 15640 17 6 87057 2 87260000 NW 58 ST Bridge No 870964 15561 18 5 36043 8 36210000 Bridge No 360022 Bridge No 360043 15535 19 7 10008 7 10190000 Bridge No 100599 Bridge No 100601 15424 20 7 10201 6 10190000 Bridge No 100697 Bridge No 100110 15240 21 7 10008 6 10190000 Bridge No 100601 N/A 15232

PAGE 139

139 22 2 72236 1 72280000 Bridge No 720334 SR 5 15191 23 4 86250 2 86070000 Bridge No 860130 Bridge No 860239 15040 24 4 86249 9 86070000 SR 842/BROWARD BLVD SR 838/SUNRISE BLVD 14787 25 5 36043 9 36210000 Bridge No 360018 Bridge No 360022 14783 26 8 97202 0 75470000 N/A RAMP 161 SB ON 14496 27 5 36031 7 36210000 Bridge No 360001 Bridge No 360063 14419 28 4 93219 7 93220000 HYPOLUXO RD CR 812/LANTANA RD 14368 29 1 16010 3 16320000 HILLSBOROUGH CO LINE ON RAMP TO I 4 14108 30 4 93219 1 93220000 N/A Bridge No 930189 14097 31 7 10011 2 10190000 N/A Bridge No 100607 14065 32 7 10535 2 10190000 Bridge No 100137 10320000 MAINLINE 14000 33 7 10560 9 10190000 N/A Bridge No 100697 14000 34 7 10560 9 10190000 Bridge No 100123 N/A 14000 35 6 87057 3 87260000 Bridge No 870964 Bridge No 870975 13908 36 7 10201 5 10190000 Bridge No 100110 Bridge No 100137 13800 37 6 87252 5 87260000 Bridge No 870778 Bridge No 870982 13680 38 6 87057 0 87260000 N/A Bridge No 870778 13671 39 7 10201 8 10190000 Bridge No 100120 Bridge No 100123 13640 40 5 77026 8 77160000 N/A N/A 13625 41 5 77026 8 77160000 LAKE MARY BLVD N/A 13625 42 6 87055 3 87260000 Bridge No 870975 Bridge No 870757 13623 43 5 77026 7 77160000 SR 436 Bridge No 770022 13550 44 2 72086 0 72280000 Bridge No 720219 Bridge No 720220 13346

PAGE 140

140 45 2 72235 3 72280000 Bridge No 720220 Bridge No 720331 13205 46 4 86033 1 86070000 Bridge No 860529 Bridge No 860531 13124 47 6 87057 1 87260000 Bridge No 870982 NW 58 ST 13110 48 4 93219 8 93220000 CR 812/LANTANA RD N/A 13088 49 5 18018 8 36210000 SUMTER COUNTY LINE Bridge No 360001 13028 50 5 18018 8 18130000 Bridge No 180070 MARION COUNTY LINE 13028 51 5 75019 6 75280000 Bridge No 750014 SR 408 12921 52 5 75019 6 75280000 N/A Bridge No 750014 12921 53 4 93219 6 93220000 N/A GATEWAY BLVD/22 AVE 12800 54 5 36044 0 36210000 Bridge No 360063 Bridge No 360018 12773 55 7 14015 6 14140000 NB 14075000 RAMP 018 12765 56 4 93220 1 93220000 N/A SR 80/SOUTHERN BLVD 12704 57 4 86250 5 86070000 Bridge No 860120 Bridge No 860121 12702 58 7 10535 3 10190000 N/A N/A 12695 59 1 16100 5 16320000 ON RAMP TO I 4 SR 546 12483 60 4 93220 0 93220000 10TH AVE N N/A 12448 61 2 26048 8 26260000 Bridge No 260054 Bridge No 260057 12420 62 1 16011 1 16320000 SR 25/US 27 OSCEOLA CO LINE 12320 63 1 16011 1 92130000 POLK COUNTY LINE Bridge No 920094 12320 64 4 93219 3 93220000 Bridge No 930499 Bridge No 930503 12320 65 8 97190 0 86470000 MIAMI DADE CO LINE Bridge No 860407 12204 66 7 10202 3 10190000 Bridge No 100586 Bridge No 100589 12144 67 2 72389 6 72001000 Bridge No 720242 Bridge No 720245 12038

PAGE 141

141 68 5 75305 6 75280000 N/A N/A 12012 69 5 75305 6 75280000 Bridge No 750074 N/A 12012 70 2 72089 5 72001000 Bridge No 720241 Bridge No 720242 11984 71 2 26345 5 26260000 Bridge No 260057 SR 222/NW 39TH AVE 11970 72 1 16010 8 16320000 N/A SR 25/US 27 11854 73 7 10008 4 10190000 Bridge No 100607 HILLS/POLK CO LINE 11827 74 7 10202 6 10190000 Bridge No 100658 Bridge No 100672 11818 75 6 87056 9 87260000 Bridge No 870268 N/A 11799 76 2 72502 0 72270000 RAMP 380 (72270436) 11736 77 2 72086 1 72280000 N/A Bridge No 720219 11685 78 2 72386 3 72280000 Bridge No 720328 N/A 11685 79 5 92031 5 92130000 N/A N/A 11655 80 5 18018 6 18130000 N/A Bridge No 180070 11623 81 5 79049 4 79002000 Bridge No 790071 LPGA BLVD 11622 82 1 16011 7 16320000 SR 546 SR 539 11600 83 1 16011 2 16320000 N/A N/A 11600 84 7 10202 8 10190000 RAMP 10320182 Bridge No 100658 11515 85 2 72216 3 72020000 Bridge No 720177 Bridge No 720178 11495 86 4 93217 2 93220000 Bridge No 930530 N/A 11488 87 2 72090 0 72001000 Bridge No 720263 Bridge No 720259 11449 88 2 72215 6 72020000 Bridge No 720301 Bridge No 720174 11448 89 6 87057 4 87260000 Bridge No 870757 Bridge No 870766 11400 90 2 72089 4 72001000 N/A Bridge No 720241 11396

PAGE 142

142 91 5 77026 6 77160000 Bridge No 770084 VOLUSIA COUNTY LINE 11388 92 1 16011 6 16320000 SR 539 Bridge No 160310 11340 93 7 10009 1 10190000 US 301 / SR 43 N/A 11337 94 1 16011 5 16320000 Bridge No 160310 N/A 11319 95 4 93222 2 93220000 GATEWAY BLVD/22 AVE HYPOLUXO RD 11296 96 7 10202 0 10190000 Bridge No 100115 Bridge No 100117 11280 97 5 79048 4 79110000 SEMINOLE COUNTY LINE N/A 11275 98 4 86016 3 86070000 Bridge No 860121 SW 10 ST/SR 869 11222 99 5 79053 4 79002000 LPGA BLVD N/A 11172 100 2 26045 6 26260000 Bridge No 260063 Bridge No 260054 11160 101 6 87056 7 87260000 Bridge No 870760 Bridge No 870112 11144 102 4 93019 8 93220000 Bridge No 930503 N/A 11104 103 2 72215 9 72020000 Bridge No 720174 Bridge No 720177 11068 104 6 87057 5 87260000 Bridge No 870766 N/A 11058 105 6 87906 0 87260000 Bridge No 870468 N/A 11050 106 1 13004 0 13075000 Bridge No 130067 Bridge No 130084 11040 107 4 93017 4 93220000 N/A Bridge No 930530 10969 108 7 10008 8 10190000 Bridge No 100614 Bridge No 100599 10824 109 2 72088 7 72290000 N/A Bridge No 720234 10824 110 4 93220 3 93220000 Bridge No 930487 N/A 10816 111 2 29025 7 26260000 N/A COLUMBIA CO LINE 10800 112 2 29025 7 29180000 ALACHUA CO LINE Bridge No 290053 10800 113 1 16011 4 16320000 N/A Bridge No 160181 10780

PAGE 143

143 114 5 77028 6 77160000 N/A Bridge No 770084 10773 115 1 13004 1 13075000 Bridge No 130084 Bridge No 130103 10770 116 8 97201 5 75470000 Bridge No 750626 Bridge No 750610 10721 117 7 10014 4 10075000 Bridge No 100363 GIBSONTON DR 10679 118 8 97062 5 75471000 Bridge No 750099 GORE WITH 75002000 10639 119 2 26990 4 26260000 Bridge No 260061 Bridge No 260063 10637 120 7 10202 4 10190000 Bridge No 100672 Bridge No 100586 10600 121 5 75058 6 75008000 N/A Bridge No 750123 10575 122 2 29025 6 29180000 Bridge No 290053 Bridge No 290059 10560 123 2 78025 9 78080000 Bridge No 780116 DUVAL CO LINE 10560 124 1 17004 7 17075000 Bridge No 170083 MANATEE CO LINE 10512 125 5 75300 7 75280000 N/A SR 91 10488 126 2 29032 0 29180000 Bridge No 290061 N/A 10409 127 2 72990 5 72280000 ST JOHNS CO LINE Bridge No 720636 10408 128 5 70036 6 70225000 N END OF BR 700127 Bridge No 700054 10350 129 7 10015 1 10075000 Bridge No 100393 Bridge No 100403 10328 130 6 87057 9 87260000 Bridge No 870239 Bridge No 870104 10316 131 6 87056 6 87260000 Bridge No 870126 Bridge No 870760 10289 132 1 16011 3 16320000 Bridge No 160181 N/A 10268 133 2 72551 4 72020000 Bridge No 720178 Bridge No 720182 10165 134 2 72086 4 72280000 Bridge No 720636 Bridge No 720328 10165 135 4 86250 4 86070000 Bridge No 860231 Bridge No 860120 10164 136 8 97200 4 75470000 Bridge No 750404 RAMP 110 SB OFF 10117

PAGE 144

144 137 8 97202 5 75470000 N/A SR 429 SB 10117 138 8 97202 5 75470000 RAMP 161 SB ON N/A 10117 139 8 97201 4 75470000 OSCEOLA COUNTY LINE Bridge No 750626 10117 140 4 86250 3 86070000 Bridge No 860239 Bridge No 860231 10105 141 7 10008 9 10190000 N/A Bridge No 100614 10000 142 5 75308 0 77160000 ORANGE COUNTY LINE SR 436 9986 143 5 75308 0 75280000 N/A SEMINOLE COUNTY LINE 9986 144 8 97050 5 75470000 Bridge No 750610 N/A 9966 145 1 13003 9 13075000 BEGIN I 275 NB Bridge No 130067 9947 146 8 97061 0 75471000 Bridge No 750089 Bridge No 750091 9945 147 5 92031 6 92130000 N/A N/A 9943 148 1 16036 3 16320000 N/A N/A 9927 149 2 26045 4 26260000 SR 222/NW 39TH AVE N/A 9900 150 5 75304 4 75280000 Bridge No 750064 Bridge No 750066 9900 151 5 75304 4 75280000 Bridge No 750066 N/A 9900 152 4 93217 7 93220000 N/A N/A 9824 153 1 13004 2 13075000 Bridge No 130103 RAMP#13175310 9779 154 2 74013 2 74160000 Bridge No 740940 GEORGIA STATE LINE 9749 155 4 93219 5 93220000 N/A N/A 9728 156 6 87056 8 87260000 Bridge No 870112 Bridge No 870268 9719 157 7 10014 7 10075000 Bridge No 100485 SR 618 X TOWN REVERS 9680 158 8 97226 6 87471000 Bridge No 870198 Bridge No 870407 9676 159 8 97053 3 75471000 END BRIDGE 750180 Bridge No 750088 9647

PAGE 145

145 160 5 70040 1 70225000 N/A N/A 9630 161 5 70040 1 70225000 ST JOHN RD N/A 9630 162 5 73029 2 73001000 N/A N/A 9630 163 7 10015 3 10075000 Bridge No 100420 Bridge No 100367 9602 164 5 36043 7 36210000 Bridge No 360043 Bridge No 360037 9579 165 2 72083 2 72270000 N/A RAMP 380 9454 166 4 86280 8 86095000 Bridge No 860378 SR 91/TURNPIKE NB 9453 167 8 97062 0 75471000 Bridge No 750088 Bridge No 750089 9436 168 5 70036 8 70225000 Bridge No 700054 N/A 9360 169 5 75058 4 75008000 N/A N/A 9353 170 1 12005 9 12075000 Bridge No 120122 Bridge No 120090 9313 171 5 75053 0 75008000 N/A N/A 9306 172 8 97190 4 86470000 Bridge No 860432 Bridge No 860533 9296 173 7 10014 6 10075000 GIBSONTON DR Bridge No 100485 9282 174 4 93218 7 93220000 N/A N/A 9280 175 7 10992 6 10075000 Bridge No 100495 N/A 9253 176 2 29032 4 29180000 N/A SUWANNEE CO LINE 9240 177 2 29032 4 37130000 COLUMBIA CO LINE N/A 9240 178 5 75306 4 75280000 N/A Bridge No 750256 9240 179 2 72090 2 72001000 Bridge No 720256 Bridge No 720412 9238 180 2 72992 3 72290000 Bridge No 720237 NASSAU CO LINE 9194 181 2 72992 3 74160000 DUVAL CO LINE Bridge No 740034 9194 182 5 79049 5 79002000 N/A Bridge No 790082 9188

PAGE 146

146 183 5 79049 5 79002000 N/A N/A 9188 184 2 72212 1 72020000 N/A Bridge No 720301 9179 185 5 75303 4 75280000 SR 408 Bridge No 750064 9174 186 7 14019 0 14140000 RAMP 018 RAMP 001 9152 187 7 10015 0 10075000 N/A Bridge No 100393 9146 188 7 08003 7 08150000 Bridge No 080021 SUMTER CO LINE 9135 189 7 10015 4 14075000 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SB I 275 9120 190 7 10015 4 10075000 Bridge No 100367 PASCO CO LINE 9120 191 2 29025 5 29180000 Bridge No 290059 Bridge No 290061 9120 192 1 13004 3 13075000 RAMP#13175302 N/A 9120 193 5 36043 6 26260000 MARION CO LINE Bridge No 260061 9021 194 5 36043 6 36210000 Bridge No 360037 ALACHUA COUNTY LINE 9021 195 4 86250 6 86070000 SW 10 ST/SR 869 Bridge No 860124 9020 196 7 15540 5 15190000 N/A 4TH ST N 8936 197 5 79049 6 79002000 Bridge No 790082 FLAGLER COUNTY LINE 8894 198 5 79049 6 73001000 VOLUSIA COUNTY LINE N/A 8894 199 2 72089 8 72001000 Bridge No 720248 Bridge No 720253 8881 200 5 75013 0 75280000 N/A N/A 8876 201 7 15010 6 15190000 54TH AVE N Bridge No 150100 8873 202 2 78005 5 78080000 INTL GOLF PKWY Bridge No 780116 8820 203 4 94190 1 94001000 MARTIN CO LINE ST LUCIE W BLVD 8816 204 2 72017 1 72280000 Bridge No 720332 Bridge No 720334 8782 205 5 75305 1 75280000 N/A Bridge No 750074 8778

PAGE 147

147 206 4 93220 2 93220000 SR 80/SOUTHERN BLVD Bridge No 930487 8768 207 7 10560 1 10075000 MANATEE CO LINE Bridge No 100346 8758 208 8 97200 3 75470000 SR 429 SB Bridge No 750404 8758 209 5 79100 3 79110000 N/A SR 472 8745 210 8 97225 0 87471000 N/A N/A 8732 211 5 75064 8 75280000 N/A N/A 8712 212 7 10014 8 10075000 SR 618 X TOWN REVERS Bridge No 100495 8694 213 6 87211 4 87260000 ON RAMP 87260514 OFF RAMP 518 8693 214 5 75302 7 75280000 Bridge No 750160 N/A 8679 215 5 75302 7 75280000 N/A Bridge No 750160 8679 216 2 72010 9 72270000 Bridge No 720199 N/A 8678 217 4 86200 1 86075000 N/A PINES BLVD/ SR 820 8672 218 8 97053 4 75471000 Bridge No 750093 Bridge No 750099 8494 219 5 77034 3 77160000 N/A LAKE MARY BLVD 8484 220 5 77034 3 77160000 Bridge No 770022 N/A 8484 221 8 97191 2 86470000 N/A COMMERCIAL BLVD 8466 222 8 97190 8 86470000 Bridge No 860533 N/A 8466 223 4 86280 6 86095000 SR 91/TURNPIKE NB Bridge No 860535 8464 224 3 55200 3 55320000 Bridge No 550074 US27/SR63/MONROE ST 8439 225 6 87040 5 87260000 Bridge No 870253 Bridge No 870051 8408 226 2 74015 8 74160000 Bridge No 740034 Bridge No 740940 8408 227 6 87525 2 87090000 NW 74 ST W 9 ST/NW 62 ST 8390 228 1 17022 5 17075000 Bridge No 170085 Bridge No 170145 8343

PAGE 148

148 229 7 10014 3 10075000 Bridge No 100346 Bridge No 100363 8320 230 2 72551 5 72020000 Bridge No 720306 N/A 8313 231 5 75053 5 75280000 Bridge No 750367 N/A 8303 232 8 97059 8 75471000 Bridge No 750091 Bridge No 750093 8296 233 7 10015 2 10075000 Bridge No 100403 Bridge No 100420 8295 234 1 17004 3 17075000 LAUREL ROAD RP 17005102 VEN CONN 8289 235 7 14008 6 14140000 RAMP 001 RAMP 007 8262 236 4 86280 4 86095000 Bridge No 860357 Bridge No 860391 8249 237 5 18992 0 18130000 Bridge No 180037 N/A 8243 238 2 72551 1 72020000 SR 5 SB 72070 000 TO PARK ST 8228 239 7 10010 4 10190000 Bridge No 100589 US 301 / SR 43 8190 240 5 75307 4 75280000 N/A N/A 8184 241 5 75307 4 75280000 N/A N/A 8184 242 8 97225 4 87471000 Bridge No 870194 Bridge No 870198 8142 243 2 27313 4 27090000 Bridge No 270047 NASSAU CO LINE 8120 244 2 27313 4 72270000 NASSAU COUNTY LINE Bridge No 720199 8120 245 2 27313 4 74170000 BAKER CO LINE DUVAL CO LINE 8120 246 1 17507 5 17075000 Bridge No 170096 LAUREL ROAD 8118 247 6 87057 6 87260000 N/A Bridge No 870468 8094 248 6 87057 8 87260000 Bridge No 870234 Bridge No 870239 8094 249 3 48200 6 48260000 N/A N/A 8062 250 1 12005 8 12075000 Bridge No 120120 Bridge No 120122 8037 251 4 93021 7 93220000 N/A Bridge No 930371 8036

PAGE 149

149 252 7 10200 9 10320000 Bridge No 100062 Bridge No 100203 8007 253 1 12005 7 12075000 Bridge No 120107 Bridge No 120120 7998 254 5 18035 8 18130000 Bridge No 180033 Bridge No 180037 7986 255 5 75306 9 75280000 Bridge No 750256 N/A 7953 256 6 87057 7 87260000 Bridge No 870051 Bridge No 870234 7952 257 2 72991 4 72001000 Bridge No 720412 Bridge No 720396 7946 258 5 92706 7 92530000 REAVES RD US 17 / US 92 / OBT 7942 259 7 14009 4 14140000 RAMP 009 HERNANDO CO LINE 7935 260 7 14009 4 08150000 PASCO CO LINE Bridge No 080021 7935 261 2 78025 8 78080000 Bridge No 780057 INTL GOLF PKWY 7920 262 4 89221 0 89095000 Bridge No 890117 Bridge No 890129 7914 263 1 12006 0 12075000 Bridge No 120090 Bridge No 120093 7888 264 5 79048 6 79110000 SR 44 N/A 7884 265 4 86200 5 86075000 N/A N/A 7868 266 6 87055 4 87260000 ON RAMP 87260337 Bridge No 870253 7866 267 8 97227 0 87471000 N/A N/A 7847 268 1 17004 2 17075000 Bridge No 170090 Bridge No 170096 7839 269 4 86018 6 86095000 Bridge No 860391 Bridge No 860378 7826 270 6 87058 1 87260000 Bridge No 870104 ON RAMP 87260514 7809 271 4 86200 3 86075000 N/A GRIFFIN RD 7803 272 7 10200 8 10320000 Bridge No 100203 Bridge No 100210 7775 273 4 89221 2 89095000 Bridge No 890129 Bridge No 890121 7770 274 7 14009 3 14140000 RAMP 007 RAMP 009 7763

PAGE 150

150 275 5 79048 5 79110000 SR 472 N/A 7755 276 8 97190 2 86470000 Bridge No 860407 Bridge No 860432 7728 277 1 13006 3 13075000 RAMP#13175310 RAMP#13175302 7719 278 2 72088 6 72290000 72290239 TO DUNN AVE N/A 7688 279 6 87013 7 87260000 N/A ON RAMP 87260337 7682 280 2 72217 0 72020000 Bridge No 720182 Bridge No 720306 7656 281 8 97191 6 86470000 COMMERCIAL BLVD ATLANTIC BLVD/SR 814 7636 282 7 10200 6 10320000 Bridge No 100214 Bridge No 100219 7632 283 5 75301 8 75280000 N/A N/A 7623 284 5 18020 8 18130000 HERNANDO COUNTY LINE N/A 7585 285 4 86026 8 86010000 MIAMI DADE CO LN SR 858/HALLANDALE BL 7566 286 7 15006 2 15190000 4TH ST N END BRIDGE 150107 7560 287 2 72088 8 72290000 Bridge No 720234 Bridge No 720237 7503 288 2 32011 2 32100000 N/A GEORGIA STATE LINE 7430 289 2 72235 5 72280000 Bridge No 720331 Bridge No 720332 7412 290 2 72224 1 72020000 N/A SB ON FR CLARK (408) 7315 291 5 18019 4 18130000 N/A Bridge No 180033 7289 292 6 87253 7 87090000 NW 95 ST/JOHN HILL R ON RAMP 87260403 7260 293 5 75306 1 75280000 N/A N/A 7224 294 7 10601 1 10030000 SR 583 / N 56TH ST N/A 7210 295 5 79990 6 79110000 N/A N/A 7209 296 4 86280 3 86095000 Bridge No 860359 Bridge No 860357 7176 297 2 32023 6 32100000 SUWANNEE CO LINE US 129/SR 51 7168

PAGE 151

151 298 2 32023 6 37130000 N/A HAMILTON CO LINE 7168 299 8 97193 0 93470000 NORTH END BR #860184 Bridge No 930416 7138 300 8 97193 0 86470000 Bridge No 860506 PALM BEACH CO LINE 7138

PAGE 152

152 A PPENDIX C INPUT PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS OF TYPE I D ESIGN USING MEPDG Structure -Design Features General Design Features Pavement Cross Slope 4% Crack Infiltration Rate (ft^3/day/ft): 2.06 Joint Design Joint spacing (ft): 15 Dowel diameter (in): 1.5 Dowel bar spacing (in): 12 Edge Support Tied PCC shoulder, Widened slab Long term LTE(%): 50 Widened Slab (ft): 13 Structure -Layers Layer 1 -JPCP General Properties PCC material JPCP Layer thickness (in): 13 Unit weight (pcf): 145 Poisson's ratio 0.2 Thermal Properties Coefficient of thermal expansion (per F x 10 6): 5.68 Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr ft F) : 1.25 Heat capacity (BTU/lb F): 0.28 Mix Properties Cement type: Type II Cementitious material content (lb/yd^3): 470 Water/cement ratio: 0.4 Aggregate type: Brooksville Limestone Reversible shrinkage (% of ultimate shrinkage): 50 Time to develop 50% of ultimate shrinkage (days): 35 Strength Properties 28 day PCC modulus of rupture (psi): 700

PAGE 153

153 Layer 2 -Permeable aggregate Unbound Material: Permeable aggregate Thickness(in): 4 Strength Properties Poisson's ratio: 0.35 Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: 0.5 Modulus (input) (psi): 40000 Drainage Properties Permeability (ft/day): 900 Time to drain 50% saturated layer (hrs): 3.76 General Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): 127.2 Specific Gravity 2.7 Layer 3 -Asphalt Concrete Material Type: Asphalt Concrete Thickness(in): 2 General Properties PG Grade(C): 76 22 Effective binder content (%): 11.6 Air Voids (%): 7 Unit weight (pcf): 150 Poisson's ratio: 0.35 Layer 4 -Type B (LBR 40) Unbound Material: Type B Thickness(in): 12 Strength Properties Poisson's ratio: 0.35 Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: 0.5 CBR: 32 Modulus (input) (psi): 23479 General Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): 120 Specific Gravity 2.7

PAGE 154

154 Layer 5 -Subbase Unbound Material: A 3 Thickness(in): Semi infinite Strength Properties Poisson's ratio: 0.35 Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: 0.5 Modulus (input) (psi): 16000 General Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): 120 Specific Gravity 2.7

PAGE 155

155 A PPENDIX D INPUT PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS OF TYPE II DESIGN US ING MEPDG Structure -Design Features General Design Features Pavement Cross Slope 4% Crack Infiltration Rate (ft^3/day/ft): 1.38 Joint Design Joint spacing (ft): 15 Dowel diameter (in): 1.5 Dowel bar spacing (in): 12 Edge Support Tied PCC shoulder, Widened slab Long term LTE(%): 50 Widened Slab (ft): 13 Structure -Layers Layer 1 -JPCP General Properties PCC material JPCP Layer thickness (in): 13 Unit weight (pcf): 145 Poisson's ratio 0.2 Thermal Properties Coefficient of thermal expansion (per F x 10 6): 5.68 Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr ft F) : 1.25 Heat capacity (BTU/lb F): 0.28 Mix Properties Cement type: Type II Cementitious material content (lb/yd^3): 470 Water/cement ratio: 0.4 Aggregate type: Brooksville Limestone Reversible shrinkage (% of ultimate shrinkage): 50 Time to develop 50% of ultimate shrinkage (days): 35 Strength Properties 28 day PCC modulus of rupture (psi): 700

PAGE 156

156 Layer 2 -Permeable aggregate Unbound Material: Permeable aggregate Thickness(in): 6 Strength Properties Poisson's ratio: 0.35 Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: 0.5 Modulus (input) (psi): 40000 Drainage Properties Permeability (ft/day): 400 Time to drain 50% saturated layer (hrs): 3.95 General Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): 127.2 Specific Gravity 2.7 Layer 3 -A 3 Material Type: A 3 Thickness(in): 60 Strength Properties Poisson's ratio: 0.35 Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: 0.5 Modulus (input) (psi): 16000 General Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): 120 Specific Gravity 2.7 Layer 4 -Subbase Unbound Material: A 3 Thickness(in): Semi infinite Strength Properties Poisson's ratio: 0.35 Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: 0.5 Modulus (input) (psi): 16000 General Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): 120 Specific Gravity 2.7

PAGE 157

157 LIST OF REFERENCES AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures Volume 2, American Association of State Highw ay and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1986. AASHTO, Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice AASHTO Designation: MEPDG, Washington, D.C. 2008. Baus, R. L., and Stires, R.L., Empirical Pavement Design Guide Implementation Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA SC 10 01. South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia, SC. 2010. Burnham, T., B. I zevbekhai and P. Rao Rangaraju, The Evolution of High Performance Concrete Pavement Design in Minnesota Federal Highway Administration Proceedings of the International Conference on Long Life Concrete Pavements Chicago, IL 2006. Cable J. and Ceylan, H., Defining the Attributes of Good In Service P ortland Cement Concrete Pavements DTFH61 01 X 00042 (Project 9, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation) USA, 2004. Cedegren, H. R. Drainage of Highway and Airfield Pavements John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1973. Demps ey, B .J. and Robnett, Q.L., Influence of Precipitation Joints, and Sealing on Pavement Drainage Transportation Research Record 705, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. 1979. FDOT, Rigid Pavement design Manual. Florida Department of Transportation, Document no. 625 010 006 e, Tallahassee, FL, 2009. Fernando, E.G, Oh, J. and Ryu, D., Phase I of MEPDG Program Implement ation in Florida Texas Transportation Institute Report D04491/PR15281 1. College Station, TX, 2008. Ferragut, T., Harrington, D. and Brink, M., Long Term Plan for Concrete Pavement Research and Technology The Concrete Pavement Road Map Report, Federal Highway Administration, USA, 2005. FHWA, Report on the 1992 U.S. Tour of European Concrete Highways Federal Highway Administration Was hington D.C. 1992. FHWA SA 92 008, Demonstration Project No. 87, Drainage Pavement System Participant Notebook Washington D.C. 1992. FHWA HI 99 028 Pavement Subsurface Drainage Design NHI Course No. 131026. Washington D.C. 1999.

PAGE 158

158 Gilles, P and Jas ienski, A., A Second youth for and old lady of 78: The rehabilitation of the Lorraine Avenue in Brussels Belgium Department Equipment and Transport of the Brussels Capital Region, Belgium, 2004. Grogan, W.P. Performanc e of Free Draining Base Course at Fort Campbell Materials: Performance and Prevention of Deficiencies and Fa ilure, New York, NY, pp 434 448, 1992. Hall, K., et al. Long Life Concrete Pavements in Europe and Canada US Department of Transportation. Report No. FHWA PL 07 027, Federal Highway Administration, USA, 2007. Kan nekanti, V., Harvey, J., Sensitivity Analysis of 2002 Design Guide Distress Prediction Models for Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement Transportation Research Record 1947: 91 100. DOI: 10.3141/1 947 09. Washington, D.C. 2006. Mallela, J., Larson, G., Wyatt, T Requirements in Pavements Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2002. Moulton, L. K, and Seals, R.K., Determination of the In Situ Permeability of Base and Subbase Courses Federal Highway Administ ration Report no. FHWA RD 79 88, Washington, D.C. 1979. Muench, S., Pierce, L., Uhlm eyer, J. and Anderson K., L ife Concrete Pavements in Washington State, Proceedings of the International Conference on Long Life Concrete Pavements, Chicago, IL, October 25 27, 2006, Federal Highway Administration, USA, 2006. Nazarian, S et al. Evaluation and Guidelines for Drainable Bases Texas Department of Transport ation, Report No. TX 96 1456 IF, TX, 1997. Nazef, N. et al., Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Specifications: State of Practice Florida Department of Transportation, USA, 2011. PIARC Technical Commi ttee, 4.3 Road Pavements, Long Life Pavements and Success Stories World Road Association, France, 2009. Pichler, R., Mlltal Concrete Pavement 50 Years Under Traffic, Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Concrete Roads, Brussels, Belgium, 2006. Ridgeway, H.H., Infiltration of Water Through the Pavement Surface Transportation Research Record 616, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 1976. Schwartz, C.W., Final Report Volume 1: Summary of Findings and Implementation Plan Maryland State Highway Administration MD SHA Project No. SP0077B41, Lutherville, MD, 2007.

PAGE 159

159 Tayabji, S.D., Framework for Design and Construction of Long Life Concrete Pavements Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Concrete Pavements, Colorado Springs, CO, 2005. Tia, M., Bloomquist, D., Alun gbe, G.D., Richardson, D., Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Concrete Used in Florida Report No. FL/DOT/RMC/0409 2995, Uni versity of Florida, Gainesville, 1991. Tia, M., Bloomquis t, D., Yang, M.C.K., Soongswang, P., Meletiou, C.A., Amornsrivilai, R. Dobson, E., Richardson, D., Field and Laboratory Study of Modulus of Rupture and Permeability of Structural Concretes in Florida Report No. FL/DOT/SMO/89/361 University of Florida, Ga ine sville, 1989. Winkelman, T.J., Proceedings of the International Conference on Long Life Concrete Pavements Chicago, IL, October 25 27, 2006, Federal Highway Administration, USA, 2006. Won, M., Kim, D.H., Cho, Y .H and Medina Chavez, C., Term Performance of Proceedings of the International Conference on Long Life Concrete Pavements Chicago, IL, October 25 27, 2006, Federal Highway Administration, USA, 20 06.

PAGE 160

160 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Cesar David Verdugo was born in the city of Cuenca, Ecuador in 1988. In 1998, he moved to Miami Florida where he continued his education. Growing up, Cesar David was inspired by his grandfather Julio Cesar and his father Cesar, to become a c ivil e ngineer. He began his studies at the University of Florida in 2006 majoring in c ivil e ngineering. In 2008, he became a Student Teaching Assistant (TA) in charge of the c ivil e ngineering m l ab where he develop ed his passion for engineering materials He graduated with his Bachelor of Science degree in civil e ngineering in 2010 with Magna Cum Laude h onors after completing an honors undergraduate t hesis based on the use of recycled glass in concrete. In August 2 010, David began his work as a graduate student studying under the guidance of Dr. Mang Tia. As part of his responsibilities, David was in charge of teaching the lab ,grading lab reports, grading individual discussions, performing experiments on materials operating testing equipment, assisting students with In 2011, funded by The Florida Department of Transportation, David began his research on Long life concrete pavements with the guidance of Dr. Man g Tia. David graduated from the University of Florida with his M aster of Engineering degree in August 2012. Dav id is also completing a master degree in business m anagement from the University of Florida. He will complete this degree in December 2012.