‘Top-Down Cracking of Rigid Pavements Constructed With Fast Set Cement Concrete Andrew C. Heath* and Jeffery R. Roesler** “Transportck, CSIR, PO Box 395, Pretoria, 0001, South Attica *** Pavement Research Center, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley, 1353 $, 46" St, Bldg 480, Richmond, CA, 94804, USA. Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP) test sections were constructed using Fast Setting Hydraulic j (Coment Concrete (FSHCO) as part ofthe California accelerated pavement testing program (CALIAPT), Many of the longer slabs cracked under environmental influences before any traffic load was applied to them, Data from field instrumentation was recorded and analyzed along with laboratory test data to determine the cause of the cracking. Cores drilled through the cracks indicated that cracking initiated atthe top of the slabs and propagated downwards. This was confirmed using the ILL-SLAB (ILSL2) finite element package whete high tensile stresses were predicted at the top of the slab as a result of the differential drying shrinkage between the top and base of the slab and the non-linear nature of the negative ‘temperature gradients through the slab. Laboratory free shrinkage tests on the test section concrete indicated significantly higher shrinkage than an ordinary Type Il Portland cement. Load plus ‘environmental stress analysis with ILSL2 suggested the critical failure location for the FSHCC pavements ‘would be near the comer of the slab not at the mid-slab edge. INTRODUCTION Mostof te igi pavements in urban areas in Califo hve pase thes design ves and are in vis ages cf dean, The agency md road vc cot of plying ane slr in ban arent i very large compared ote ata ost of materia nd placement. ‘To minimize lane closures, Caltrans proposed the use of Fast Setting Hydraulic Cement Concrete (FSHCC) to facilitate the reconstruction of urban freeways. Since little information was known about FSHCC pavement performance under loading and the environment, Caltrans initiated a research project to-CSA2 -*- New GSAT ‘Shrinkage of mortar bars at 20°C and 50% relative humidity 100Heath and Roesler Average shrinkage (microstrain) Be ae 8 FIGURES 0 ‘Timo aftor mixing (days) Shrinkage of conerete and mortar bars 100Heath and Roesler A-8 and JDMD vs temperature differential : Section 9 25 50 3 40 = i: —£ 30 ra 3 20 g 1 2 10 3 8 os 8 o é a Ft 410 05 : -20 © + ° ° a . © ° 2 ‘Temperature differential (C) [— Average JDMD ~~~ Predicted JDMD if comer touched ground ----- Difference in AS FIGURE 6 Typical JDMD and A-8 data vs slab temperature differential nin AS Differential st (microstrain)Heath and Roesler ‘JDMD reading vs ILSL2 analysis - Corner deflection during the day Corner deflection (mm) 05 0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00 Time of day [== JDMD —s— FEA including shrinkage --«--FEA no shrinkage) FIGURE7 —_ JDMD reading vs finite element predictionHeath and Roesler ‘i085 at op of sla (MPa: Enviromental stresses 8.8m ong slab acm) Length ‘tess at op of sa (MP3): Enveormertal sirssos 4.0m fong sab | 25 waren) FIGURE 8 Top of slab tensile stresses (MPa) under worst ease environmental loading, top for 5.8 mand bottom for 4.0 m long slabHeath and Roesler watom) FIGURE9 ‘8238 at top oft (MPa): Stress from come a: Sm sb Lena im) ‘Sirs al op of sab (MP3: S055 fom comer load: 40m sab ‘Top of slab tensile stresses (MPa) under worst case environmental and 40 KN corner load, top for 5.8 m and bottom for 4.0 mong slab