Workshop Slides EVERFE

EverFE Workshop
Sacramento, CA March 11, 2004
Bill Davids, PhD, PE University of Maine william.davids@umit.maine.edu
JPCP Is a Complex Structure

A 7-12 layer of concrete on a base, sub-base, soil Subjected to a variety of axle loads and fatigue effects Experiences seasonal and daily temperature changes Sawn transverse joints every 12 15 (+/-) Transverse joints often doweled for better load transfer Adjacent slabs may be tied at longitudinal joints Can experience substantial early-age shrinkage
JPCP Is a Complex Structure

Dowel Retrofit
Contraction Joint
I-90 in Washington State
Failure Modes in JPCP
Panel Cracking
Corner Break
Transverse Joint Faulting
Shrinkage Cracking
Mechanistic-Empirical Design of JPCP

tO No K
1. Estimate design parameters (thickness, joint spacing, etc.) 2. Predict response under axle loads, temperature changes, etc. 4. Plans and Specs, Bid, Construct
3. Assess effect of stresses on fatigue life and durability

OK
Construction Problems?
Predicting Response of JPCP

Usually a Westergaard-type analysis
1. Three critical wheel load positions are assumed
~slab~ wheel Edge
Interior
Corner
2. Linear thermal gradients through the slab thickness Pos. gradient
Neg. gradient
3. 4.
Slabs are founded directly on a dense liquid Assumes an infinitely large slab, no joint load transfer
Predicting Response of JPCP

1. Limitations of Westergaard-type analysis are severe 2. Predictions of pavement structural response are: Essential for understanding pavement behavior Critical for developing rational design methods Important in forensic analysis of pavement failures 3. Clear need exists for better JPCP analysis tools
What is EverFE?
Software for the 3D Finite Element (FE) analysis of JPCP Incorporates specialized strategies for modeling important response characteristics Allows the generation of models with varying complexity Utilizes problem-specific solvers for efficiency Integrated modeling software and graphical user interface Intuitive model construction and result visualization
Anatomy of an EverFE Model

Basic model characteristics: Up to nine slab/shoulder units Up to three base/subgrade layers Dense liquid supports model Dowels, ties, aggregate interlock Loading: Multiple axle types Thermal gradients Extensive post-processing: Slab stresses and displacements Dowel results
Workshop Objectives
1. Familiarize you with EverFEs capabilities Overview basic finite-element concepts Cover details of EverFE unique capabilities 2. Give you hands-on experience with the software Generate and run models Increasing level of model complexity 3. Explain what EverFE can and cant do
Workshop Topics
Introduction Overview of Finite-Element Concepts Generation and Solution of a Simple Model Slab-Base Interaction Analysis of Thermal Gradients and Slab Shrinkage Modeling Dowel Joint Load Transfer Modeling Aggregate Interlock Joint Load Transfer Example of a More Complex Simulation Obtaining EverFE and Program Architecture
Finite-Element Concepts
Mathematical definition: functional method for solving partial differential equations
Our definition: well-established numerical technique for determining stresses, strains and displacements in engineering structures
Why is FEA so popular? Applies to wide classes of problems Easily treats different boundary conditions Excellent for irregular geometries Easily handles spatially varying material properties Well-suited to nonlinear and dynamic problems Easily generalized for computer implementation
Structural Analysis of a Frame Optimization in Mechanical Design
Analysis of a Welded Connection
Analysis and Design of a Floor Slab
FE Procedure in a Nutshell: Divide a structure into discrete inter-connected finite elements that meet at nodes Make each finite element responsible for defining an approximate solution over its domain Take the original governing differential equation and re-cast it using the properties of the finite elements (the mathematically difficult part) Solve the resulting system of equations for unknown displacements, recover stresses, etc.
Simple problem from structures/strength of materials
f(x)
x
Elastic rod of length L, elastic modulus E, area A, fixed ends Governing differential equation:
EA
d 2u = f ( x) dx 2
Finite-element discretization and solution
element
nodes
exact solution
stress
FE solution
10
How does each element represent the solution?
interpolated displ. nodal displ.
1D linear element constant stress
1D quadratic element linearly varying stress
Basic Element Types in Structures and Solid Mechanics
Beam/Truss Element 2D Elements t Plate/Shell Elements 3D Elements
11
History of FE Modeling of Concrete Pavements Earliest models treated slabs as plates on elastic solids ILLISLAB, JSLAB, etc. released in late 1970s, early 1980s
Modeling of multiple slabs with 2D plate elements Methods for handling joint load transfer
Researchers began using existing general-purpose 3D codes

Detailed models of doweled joints Treatment of slab-base interaction
EverFE was first released in 1998

Development started in 1995, has continued until present
Important Issues to Bear in Mind: FEA is an approximate method Model must closely mimic physical reality
Accurate material properties Appropriate boundary conditions Reasonable representation of loads
The proper elements need to be used in discretization Sufficient mesh refinement is essential
12
What is the peak tensile stress in a large slab with: 40 kN wheel load applied at the edge, r = 228 mm Slab properties: t = 254 mm, E = 27,600 MPa, v = 0.20 Subgrade k = 0.027 MPa/mm
~ Very large slab ~
40 kN
1948 Westergaard Solution: Finite-Element Solution: Build model with quadratic solid elements Represent load with a 405mm x 405mm square contact area (equivalent area to circle) Critical questions: How large a slab to model? How many elements to use in the model?
max
= 1.43 MPa
13
Finite-Element Solution: Start with a large slab (5000mm x 5000mm) Study the effect of mesh refinement on solution 5000mm 5000mm increase # of elements 24 x 24 elements
2 x 2 elements
Examine the effect of model size on solution
Effect of Mesh Refinement on Results
1.6 Maximum Stress (MPa) 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0 Westergaard 2 elements through thickness 1 element through thickness
10 20 30 Number of Elements Along Edge (Only even number of elements used)
14
What if we change our discretization slightly?
2 Elements through thickness Discretization 12 u 12 24 u 24 13 u 13 25 u 25 Stress (MPa) 1.48 1.43 1.23 1.33 Load is centered in element: Element captures linear variation in stress Element cant see peak stress!
Effect of Model Size on Results
1.5 Maximum Stress (MPa) 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 1000 12x12x2 elements for all runs 3000 5000 7000 Slab Size (mm) 9000
15
Workshop Topics
Generating an EverFE Model

y x z 20-noded brick element
beam elements for dowels and transverse ties
16-noded interface element 8-noded dense liquid element
16
Generating an EverFE Model

Example Analysis Single slab, 5000mm long x 3600mm wide x 250mm thick Founded on 125mm thick bonded CTB with E = 7000 MPa Single 120 kN, dual wheel axle located at edge
5000mm 3600mm
120 kN axle
Plan Elevation
slab bonded CTB
Workshop Topics
17
Slab-Base Interaction
The base layer is rarely bonded to the slab Slip (relative horizontal movement) between slab and base Vertical separation of slab and base may occur Consider the model we just solved
Bonded Base (as solved) z =0.91mm, max = 1.42 MPa
Unbonded Base z =1.01mm, max = 2.53 MPa
EverFEs treatment of slip and vertical separation Slab-base interface may be fully bonded or tensionless Slab and base layer are meshed separately slab base corresponding pairs of nodes
permanently tied if base is bonded (linear) released under tension if base is unbonded (nonlinear)
1mm or 0.1 in
18
EverFEs treatment of shear stresses at interface Interface elements relate slip to shear stress Shear stress-slip relation:
Applies only when slab and base remain in contact Shear stress
slip,
kSB
Defining parameters
Background on shear stress-slip relation Shear stress is caused by several mechanisms Classical friction Interlock (interaction of two rough surfaces) Adhesion (chemical bond) This elastic-plastic model has seen recent use in literature Rasmussen and Rozycki (2001) Zhang and Li (2001) Parameters kSB and
0
determined from push-off tests
19
What are typical values for k and
0?
Data reported by Rasmussen and Rozycki (2001): Base Type

Rough HMA Smooth HMA Rough Asphalt Stabilized Smooth Asphalt Stabilized Cement Stabilized Granular
kSB
(MPa/mm) 0.270 0.068 0.200 0.065 4.100 0.027
(mm) 0.250 0.510 0.510 0.640 0.025 0.510
Quick parametric study Re-run our single-slab model with an unbonded base Let 0 = 1mm, vary kSB use say 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 50 Study the effect of varying kSB on peak tensile stress kSB
0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 50.0 2.53 2.25 2.14 2.01 1.83 1.71 1.51 Notes Shear transfer has a large effect on stress Slab and base maintained full contact Model remained linear Approaches bonded solution for large kSB
20
Workshop Topics
Analysis of Thermal Gradients

Nighttime curling: top of slab cools relative to the bottom after a warm day
- T slab thickness
Corners of slab curl upward
Weight of slab + T pulls downward Tension on top of slab
21

Daytime curling: top of slab heats relative to the bottom during a warm day
T slab thickness
Center of slab lifts upward
Weight of slab - T pulls downward Tension on bottom of slab

Analytical solutions for stresses exist for simple cases However, thermal gradients are often nonlinear
slab thickness
Slab-base interaction plays a significant role in response

Loss of contact between slab and base layer Shear stresses develop at slab-base interface
22

EverFE idealizes gradients as linear, bilinear or tri-linear Equal vertical spacing assumed between each T Bilinear Gradient:
slab thickness 2 Elements 1 Element 3 Elements 3 Elements
Specified Temperature Variation
Temperature Variations Used in FE Analysis

Trilinear Gradient:
slab thickness 2 Elements
Specified Temperature Variation
1 Element
Temperature Variations Used in FE Analysis
23

Quick parametric study
Re-run our single-slab model Consider positive (+5oC/-5oC) and negative (-5oC/+5oC) gradients Consider both bonded and unbonded base with no shear transfer
Results of Analyses:
Maximum Principal Stress (MPa) Bonded Unbonded Positive Negative 1.45 1.22 0.94 0.86

Effect of thermal gradient nonlinearity
Re-run our single-slab model with nonlinear gradients, unbonded base
Positive gradient Results:
Negative gradient
1.71 MPa for positive (82% increase over linear gradient) 0.47 MPa for negative (45% decrease over linear gradient plus peak stress is at mid-thickness of slab!)
24
Analysis of Slab Shrinkage

Shrinkage can be simulated as an equivalent thermal gradient Example: Consider a uniform shrinkage of -0.0001 mm/mm Coeff. of thermal expansion = 1.1x10-5/oC Equivalent T = -0.0001/1.1x10-5/oC = -9.09oC Re-run our single-slab model assuming: -9.09oC
No slab-base shear transfer A rough HMA base (E = 2000 MPa, kSB = 0.27 MPa/mm, 0 = 0.25mm)
Analysis of Slab Shrinkage

Results of Simulation No slab-base shear transfer With slab-base shear transfer
x = +/-0.25mm at x = 0mm, 5000mm

No stresses are developed in slab
max = 0.32 MPa
BOS Stresses
25
Early-Age Effects
Concrete pavements sometimes crack during curing Primary causes are thermal and/or shrinkage gradients that occur prior to concrete gaining full tensile strength
Shrinkage cracks in new pavement
Early-Age Effects
Simple example of how this can be studied with EverFE
Re-run our single-slab model founded on CTB Consider a negative (-5oC/+5oC) thermal gradient Unbonded base with no shear transfer Examine effect of curing time on ratio of slab stress:slab MOR
Assumptions: MOR = 6 f c E = 57,000 f c (usual ACI equations, psi)

Assume these relationships are valid for cure times of 128 days Type I cement, published relationship between time and
f c
Examine effect of curing time on ratio of slab stress:slab MOR
26
Early-Age Effects
Details of Analysis Parameters f c
Age days 1.0 2.5 4.0 9.0 28.0 Age-strength relationship
E MPa MPa 5.5 11100 10.3 15230 13.8 17580 20.7 21530 27.6 24870
MOR MPa 1.17 1.60 1.85 2.27 2.62
Early-Age Effects
Results of Analysis
0.50 Max stress/MOR 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 Displaced shape
TOS stresses
10 15 20 Time (days)
25
30
27
Workshop Topics
Dowel Joint Load Transfer

The challenge: How do we model this? wheel load dowel
high stress on subgrade
separation of slab and subgrade
28

Early models used springs at transverse joints
Both 2D models with plate elements and 3D models
Other models used beams on elastic foundations
Primarily 2D models with plate elements

Challenges for idealizing dowels in 3D FE models:
Conventional discretizations require slab and dowel nodes to coincide slab mesh lines
dowels
Plan View Dowel-slab interaction and dowel looseness are difficult to treat
29

Our solution is the embedded dowel element
solid element Beam element is constrained to displace compatibly with the embedding solid element slab mesh lines
Immediate Benefit:
dowels

Specification of dowels in EverFE Dowels can be equally spaced Dowels can be located in wheelpaths Dowels can be manually located by specifying y-coordinate Each row of slabs can have different dowel placements Example of dowel placement Start a new model with say 2 rows x 3 columns of slabs Go to dowel panel Try different methods of dowel placement
30

Treatment of Dowel-Slab Interaction with EverFE Dowel Looseness
gap
Dowel-Slab Support Modulus

Kz = modulus of dowel support diameter
gap length Rigorous treatment Either bonded or unbonded Can be severe nonlinearity Less rigorous treatment Model remains linear Allows intermediate bond levels
Dowel Looseness
Significance:
Has been studied experimentally and numerically Small gaps (< 0.50mm) can greatly reduce joint load transfer
Treatment by EverFE:
Embedded element formulation is very advantageous Treated as a nodal contact problem Multiple embedded beam elements are used for each dowel single element multiple elements
31
Dowel Looseness
Laboratory Tests of Hammons (1997)
0m 122 m
914 mm 10 kN
12 - 6.35 mm dowels
51 mm
rubber pad unbonded CTB
k = 0.09 MPa/mm
grease and drinking straw
Dowel Looseness
0.2 Vertical Displacement (mm) model, no looseness model, gap = 0.08 mm 0.4
0.6 -400
experimental no CTB -200 -100 0 100
Distance from Joint (mm)
32
Dowel Looseness
0.2 Vertical Displacement (mm) model, k = 0.09 MPa/mm, gap = 0.08mm 0.4 model, k = 0.07 MPa/mm, gap = 0.08 mm
0.6 -400
experimental with CTB -200 -100 0 100 Distance from Joint (mm)
Dowel Looseness
Example for 2-slab system:
Slabs are 4600mm long x 3600mm wide x 250mm thick Founded directly on dense liquid, k = 0.03 MPa/mm E = 28000 MPa, = 0.20, density = 0 Center an 80-kN axle with 2 wheels transversely, left of joint Set linear aggregate interlock stiffness to 0 Use 11 evenly spaced 32mm diameter dowels at the joint Choose dowel looseness, de-select bonded, Emb = 225 mm Set GapB to 125mm (1/2 embedded length) We will vary GapA: (0 to 0.4mm in 0.05mm increments)
33
Dowel Looseness
Results of Analysis Gap LTE l u (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (MPa) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.467 0.528 0.578 0.622 0.646 0.660 0.664 0.467 0.528 0.384 0.344 0.323 0.310 0.306 100 81 66 55 50 47 46 0.865 1.019 1.121 1.267 1.309 1.323 1.326

Background:
More traditional method of idealizing dowel-slab interaction Dowel-slab interface idealized with distributed springs Results in a linearly elastic model Can specify varying degrees of bond and dowel locking
Example:
Consider the same example we just analyzed Specify dowel-slab support modulus in lieu of dowel looseness Vary modulus from 1 to a very large value, say 1x10-6
34

Results of Analysis
Kz LTE l u (MPa) (mm) (mm) (%) (MPa)

1e6 1e4 5000 500 100 1 0.474 0.505 0.517 0.612 0.771 0.969 0.471 0.457 0.447 0.357 0.200 0.004 99 90 86 58 26 0 0.912 1.182 1.223 1.310 1.362 1.417
Dowel Misalignment/Mislocation
Inaccurately cut transverse joints mislocated dowels Improperly placed dowels dowel misalignment
x
Intended position Actual Position r
Intended position
y
Actual position Elevation View
Plan View
35
Treatment by EverFE
Embedded dowel element permits implementation Straightforward when dowel-slab support modulus is specified A different solver must be used when modeling looseness
Example with EverFE

Consider the same example we just analyzed Vary x from 0 100mm with Kz = 2000 (LTE = 79% at x = 0) Study effect of x on response
Results of Analysis:
x
(mm) 0 20 40 60 80 100
LTE Dowel Bearing (%) (MPa) Shear Stress (N) (MPa) 78.6 78.6 78.6 78.2 77.9 77.3 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.27 3789 3787 3783 3770 3745 3703 135.7 136.1 137.2 139.5 143.7 150.2
36
Transverse Ties
Can be independently specified for each longitudinal joint Modeled with same embedded elements used for dowels Can model tie-slab support and restraint moduli Assumed evenly spaced along each joint First tie is placed at tie spacing from left-hand joint
Transverse Ties
Example to Illustrate Tie Effectiveness
4600mm (typ) Model Properties 250mm slab on dense liquid 12-32mm dowels give 80% LTE at transverse joint Tied shoulder 13mm diameter, 750mm long ties Corner axle load and thermal gradient considered in analyses
3600mm 1800mm
80 kN axle
37
Transverse Ties
Maximum Principal Stress (MPa) 1.5 1.3 1.1 Axle + thermal Slab stress with NO ties: Axle load: 1.33 MPa Thermal: 0.746 MPa Axle+thermal: 1.39 MPa
0.9 0.7 650
Axle load Thermal 670 690 710 730 750
Tie Spacing (mm)
Transverse Ties
Observations and Conclusions:
Ties can dramatically reduce slab stresses due to corner loads Tie effectiveness strongly depends on its proximity to joint
700 mm spacing
Max. stress = 0.719 MPa
710 mm spacing
Max. stress = 1.38 MPa
38
Workshop Topics
Aggregate Interlock
The challenge: How do we model this? wheel load aggregate interlock
Interaction of two rough crack surfaces Seasonal joint opening significantly affects load transfer
39
Aggregate Interlock
Usual FE Treatment of Aggregate Interlock:
Springs at Transverse Joints Coulomb Friction
Simple, traditional approach Model remains linear No effect of joint opening
Shear depends on normal stress Any joint opening => no shear
EverFEs Two-Phase Model

crack
Relies on Walravens Model

concrete is two-phase medium aggregate particles are rigid spheres paste is rigid-plastic cracks follow aggregate boundaries particles bear on paste, at point of slip aggregate particles
40

aggregate particle crack opening
Fy
Particle Equilibrium:
Fx
Fx = pu ( Ay + Ax )
embedment
pu
Fy = pu ( Ax Ay )
pu = pu
deformed paste

Two-phase model parameters 1)
pu =
ultimate strength of cement paste
Walraven suggests pu = 8.0 f cc fcc = 1.25fc (units are MPa) 2) = paste-aggregate coefficient of friction (0.4 0.5) 3) aggregate volume fraction (usually 0.7 0.8) 4) Maximum aggregate size (typically 18 or 20 mm) 5) Initial joint opening (seasonally variable)
41

Initial joint opening is a critical parameter Greatly affects nonlinear aggregate interlock model Affects contact between joint faces initial joint opening Shear Stress direct effect 20 16 12 8 4 0
i joi ncre nt a op sin en g ing
0 0.5 1.0 Relative Vertical Displacement

Loading PL 1219 mm
2743 mm Pre-cracked 178 mm 229 mm Joint Filler Zero Stiffness Two-Phase Model
Tests by Colley and Humphrey (1967)
Finite Element Idealization
42

178 mm Slab 100 80 LTE (%) 60 40 20 0 Two-phase model 1 2 Joint Opening (mm) 3 Experimental data 100 80 60 40 20 0 229 mm Slab
1 2 Joint Opening (mm)

Example for 2-slab system:
Slabs are 4600mm long x 3600mm wide x 250mm thick Same as Found directly on dense liquid, k = 0.03 MPa/mm doweled E = 28000 MPa, = 0.20, density = 0 model Center an 80-kN axle with 2 wheels transversely, left of joint No dowels at the joint Specify nonlinear aggregate interlock model pu = 50 MPa = 0.4 volume fraction = 0.75 Dmax = 20mm Examine effect of joint opening on response
43

Results of analysis: Joint Opening LTE l u (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (MPa) 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.489 0.519 0.568 0.632 0.707 0.860 0.963 0.486 0.456 0.406 0.343 0.267 0.114 0.012 99 88 71 54 38 13 1 0.863 1.227 1.271 1.301 1.330 1.386 1.414

Practical use of two-phase model: Recent research has validated this type of model However, the model is not perfect:
It assumes no fracture of coarse aggregate (Walraven suggests scaling down pu to account for this) EverFE does not account for smooth surface at sawcut (Will tend to overestimate joint shear transfer) Estimating parameters is difficult
44
Linear Aggregate Interlock Model

Springs at transverse joints Example for 2-slab system
Joint Stiffness l u (MPa/mm) (mm) (mm) 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.974 0.647 0.538 0.518 0.493 0.488 0.000 0.328 0.436 0.456 0.481 0.486
LTE (%) (MPa) 0 51 81 88 97 99 1.418 1.360 1.290 1.238 0.997 0.852
Simple approach Model remains linear Joint opening has no effect
Workshop Topics
45
Effect of Slab-Base Shear Transfer and Dowel Locking

Prior studies have identified critical parameters: Interface shear stiffness (kSB) and elastic limit ( 0) Dowel-slab bond (dowel locking) Interface properties for given base types (Zhang and Li 2001): Low: kSB 0 (bond-breaker) Intermediate: kSB = 0.035 MPa/mm, 0 = 0.60 mm (ATB) High: kSB = 0.416 MPa/mm, 0 = 0.25 mm (HMAC)
Parametric Study FE Model

4600 mm 3600 mm doweled joints 250 mm thick slab 150 mm thick base 32 mm dowels, no looseness Material properties: 60,300 DOF 3,024 brick elements E = 28,000 MPa = 0.20 = 2,400 kg/m3 = 1.1x10-5/oC
slab
46
Parametric Study Loads

10 oC 6 oC 14 oC
14 oC Uniform Shrinkage T + Gradient + Shrinkage + TT
6 oC Gradient + Shrinkage TT
Slab Displacements and Stresses

Displacements due to TT
500 X Magnification
Max. principal stresses due to TT
47
Selected Maximum Stresses (kPa)

Degree of Slab/Base Shear Transfer Dowel Type Locked Load Case T + TT TT Low 0 870 688 0 872 689 Int. 159 973 818 118 906 669 High 594 1180 991 591 1510 547 Stress Location Bottom Bottom Top Bottom Bottom Top
T + TT Unlocked TT
Discussion of Results for TT

Negative prestrain gradient produces curling, tension on top Dowel restraint uniformly increases tension Shear stresses at bottom of slab decrease tension on top of slab
48
Effect of Dowel Restraint for + TT

Max. Principal Stress (MPa) 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0 Intermediate Slab/Base Shear Transfer 400 800 1200 1600 2000 High Slab/Base Shear Transfer
Dowel Axial Restraint Modulus (MPa)
Discussion of Results for + TT

Positive prestrain gradient produces tension on bottom Shear stresses at bottom of slab increase tension on bottom of slab Dowel restraint restricts relative slip between slab and base With high base/slab shear transfer, restricted slip decreases tension due to base-slab shear
49
Workshop Topics
Obtaining EverFE
1. Get a cashiers check for $5000 made out to Bill Davids
Go to http://www.civil.umaine.edu/EverFE Download EverFE2.23.exe Run EverFE2.23.exe on your computer You can now run EverFE using the new desktop icon, or from the Programs menu Questions to william.davids@umit.maine.edu
50
Program Architecture
Basic architecture of software
What you see
User Interface (Tcl/Tk/vtk)
FE meshing code (compiled C++)
FE solver (compiled C++)
Nonlinear agg. interlock (compiled C++)
What does the hard work
Directory structure Top-level directory Aggregate interlock data Project definitions/results Help file and manual Finite-element solver Tcl/Tk code Tcl/Tk libraries
51
How Project Data is Stored
Each project has a file with a .prj extension, and a subdirectory The .prj file is a placeholder to allow the project to be recognized The subdirectory contains project definition, FE input/output
Why is this important?

These files are simple ASCII text files, but can get large If you want to archive a project to save disk space, you simply move the .prj file and entire subdirectory to another storage device At any time in the future, you can copy the .prj file and subdirectory back to EverFE2.23/data, and it will be recognized
Thank You
52

Workshop Slides EVERFE

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Workshop Slides EVERFE

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

EverFE Workshop

Sacramento, CA March 11, 2004

Bill Davids, PhD, PE University of Maine william.davids@umit.maine.edu

JPCP Is a Complex Structure

JPCP Is a Complex Structure

I-90 in Washington State

Failure Modes in JPCP

Failure Modes in JPCP

Failure Modes in JPCP

Transverse Joint Faulting

Failure Modes in JPCP

Mechanistic-Empirical Design of JPCP

3. Assess effect of stresses on fatigue life and durability

Predicting Response of JPCP

~slab~ wheel Edge

2. Linear thermal gradients through the slab thickness Pos. gradient

Predicting Response of JPCP

Anatomy of an EverFE Model

Structural Analysis of a Frame Optimization in Mechanical Design

Analysis of a Welded Connection

Analysis and Design of a Floor Slab

1D linear element constant stress

1D quadratic element linearly varying stress

Beam/Truss Element 2D Elements t Plate/Shell Elements 3D Elements

Researchers began using existing general-purpose 3D codes

EverFE was first released in 1998

~ Very large slab ~

Examine the effect of model size on solution

10 20 30 Number of Elements Along Edge (Only even number of elements used)

Generating an EverFE Model

beam elements for dowels and transverse ties

16-noded interface element 8-noded dense liquid element

Generating an EverFE Model

slab bonded CTB

Bonded Base (as solved) z =0.91mm, max = 1.42 MPa

Unbonded Base z =1.01mm, max = 2.53 MPa

determined from push-off tests

Data reported by Rasmussen and Rozycki (2001): Base Type

(mm) 0.250 0.510 0.510 0.640 0.025 0.510

Analysis of Thermal Gradients

Corners of slab curl upward

Weight of slab + T pulls downward Tension on top of slab

Analysis of Thermal Gradients

Center of slab lifts upward

Weight of slab - T pulls downward Tension on bottom of slab

Analysis of Thermal Gradients

Slab-base interaction plays a significant role in response

Analysis of Thermal Gradients

Specified Temperature Variation

Temperature Variations Used in FE Analysis

Analysis of Thermal Gradients

Specified Temperature Variation

Temperature Variations Used in FE Analysis

Analysis of Thermal Gradients

Analysis of Thermal Gradients

Positive gradient Results:

Analysis of Slab Shrinkage

Analysis of Slab Shrinkage

x = +/-0.25mm at x = 0mm, 5000mm

max = 0.32 MPa

Shrinkage cracks in new pavement

Assumptions: MOR = 6 f c E = 57,000 f c (usual ACI equations, psi)

Examine effect of curing time on ratio of slab stress:slab MOR