SEMINARIO INTERNACIONAL

TECNOLOGA E INNOVACIN
EN PAVIMENTOS DE CONCRETO
LIMA 29 MARZO 2010
ORGANIZADO POR:

ENSAYO ACELERADO DE
PAVIMENTOS DE CONCRETO
CON LOSAS OPTIMIZADA
Lima, Peru
29 de Marzo 2010

Jeffery Roesler, Ph.D., P.E.

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Profesor Visitante
Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile
Departamento de Ingeniera y Gestin de la Construccin

Concrete Slabs with Optimized Geometry

Acknowledgements

University of Illinois (UIUC)

Victor Cervantes, M.S
Armen Amirkhanian, Tyler Waddle

Professor Jose Balbo (Sabbatical at UIUC- Summer 2008)

University of So Paulo

RESEARCH SPONSORS
TCPavements, Limitada (Santiago, CHILE)

Juan Pablo Covarrubias T, Juan Pablo Covarrubias V

Patente Industrial en Chile N 44820-2009

U.S. Patent: N 7,571,581

World Organization of Intellectual Property (PCT/EP2006/064732)

www.tcpavements.com

Concrete Slabs with Optimized Geometry:

Design Concept

Concrete slabs designed and constructed such that

only one set of truck wheels rest on a single slab

Reduced slab tensile stresses or allowable wheel loads

increase

Thinner concrete pavements (7 to 10 cm less than

traditional AASHTO design)

Lower initial construction costs

Concrete Slabs with Optimized Geometry

Pavement Design Features Evaluated

Short slabs (<3m)

Granular base (< 6% to 8% passing 75 m) with 15cm

min. thickness

Geotextile separation between base-subgrade

Thin sawcut joint (2-3 mm thick)

No joints sealing

No dowel bars or tie bars

Lateral confinement with curb, shoulder, fibers, or

vertical steel pins

Research Objectives at Univ. of Illinois

Concrete Slabs w/ Optimized Geometry:

Conduct full-scale accelerated pavement tests of

thinner concrete pavements
Slab responses
Failure patterns
Fatigue performance (cracking and joint)

Full-scale evaluation

Fatigue life of 9, 15, & 20cm slab thickness

1.8mx1.8m slab size

Stabilized and unstabilized base layer

Fiber vs. no fibers
Edge vs. wheel path loading

Full-scale results for design software validation

Concrete Slab Test Sections

Constructed
1.8m

1.8m
40m

Fiber reinforced
concrete

Plain concrete

1.8m

Concrete

1.8m

2
free edge

ACB

1
(a)

h= 10cm

~18cm

h= 15 cm
(a)

40m

1.8m
1.8m
2
free edge

(b)

h= 15 cm

1.8m

1.8m

h= 20 cm

Concrete

40m

Aggregate Base

1.8m
1.8m

Nonwoven geotextile

2
1

free edge

h= 9cm

(c)

h= 9cm

(b)

22 slabs per section

Only 14 slabs loaded

15cm

University of Illinois: Full-Scale

Testing Facilities (ATREL)

Subgrade Preparation

Geotextile and Granular Base

Compaction

Asphalt Concrete Milling (Section 1)

Concrete Mixture Design

Material

Quantity (kg/m3)

Coarse Aggregate

1128

Fine Aggregate

720

Cement

250

Fly Ash (Type C)

83

Water

140

STRUX 90/40 Fibers

3.6

Daracem 19*

26 (Fl oz/ yd3)

w/cm = 0.42

Flexural Strength
= 6.7 MPa

Prior to Concrete Casting

Casting Day October 15, 2007

Final Concrete
Placement

Sawcutting Operation

Steel Pins for Lateral Restraint

Concrete Pavement Test Sections

Before Loading

Instrumentation Layout

Instrumentation Types

Thermocouples

STRAIN GAGES

FWD Testing
November 2007

0.1 mm = 4 mils

ATLAS
(Advanced Transportation Loading ASsembly)

ATLAS Dimensions and Weight

Winch

End Weldment

Main Beams

End Weldment

Engine &
Hydraulics

Carriage

3.6m

Track System

38m

Total =80,000 kg

Track System

Summary of ATLAS Features

Load capacity: 350 kN
Dual tires: load to 80 kN
Aircraft tire: load to 310 kN
26m traffic length (20m at 14 kph)
Uni- or Bi-directional
Adjustable lateral position

ATLaS: Wheel Loads

Duals
44kN
90kN

Aircraft
44kN
90kN
130kN

220kN

Project Site in January 2008

Deflection Sensors (LVDTs) 9cm

Sections

Edge Loading 9 cm Slabs

ACCELERATED
PAVEMENT
TESTING
January 2008
229,000 ESALs without any cracking
Frozen base/subgrade (CBR~100)

How do you calculate ESALs for

Accelerated Pavement Tests?
ESAL

P
40

4 .2

P = wheel load (kN)

n = number of passes of wheel load (P)
= wander magnifications factor (e.g., max. 20)

Determinations of Magnification
Factor ( ) for Channelized Traffic
4

N a 225000

MOR

Vesic and Saxena (1969) AASHO Road Test

ne
N allow( n )
ne
N allow(18)

Section 3B 9 cm FRC
TENSILE STRAIN
8 mm - F iber R einforc ed C onc rete
S trains - Winter
350

22kN

40kN

300

mic ros train

250
58 E
200
59 J

150
100

59 E

50
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

P as s es

Winter 2008

10000

12000

14000

Deflection Measurement Definition

8M
8L

8R

Section 3A 9 cm Plain Concrete

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS
G ranular B as e - 8mm - P lain C onc rete
VE R T IC A L L VDT S
0.3

22kN

Deflec tions (in)

0.25

40kN
51
51
52
52
52
53

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

P as s es

Winter 2008

10000

12000

14000

M
R
L
M
R
L

Section 3B 9 cm FRC
VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS
G ranular B as e - 8 mm F ibers R einforc ed C onc rete
VE R T IC A L L VDT S
0.3

22kN

Deflec tions (in)

0.25

40kN

0.2

57
58
58
58
59
59

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

P as s es

Winter 2008

10000

12000

14000

R
L
M
R
L
M

April 2008 Spring-time Loading

Near edge trafficking
Soil has low CBR
4

Section 3 (South)
9 cm Edge Loading (22, 40, 53 kN)
Plain (slabs 49 to 55)
FRC (slabs 56 to 62)
Fibers

March 2009

Plain Concrete

SECTION 3 (South)
CRACK DEVELOPMENT
4/21/08

Final

9 cm - FRC

9 cm - Plain

4/19/08

193,000 ESALs

234,000 ESALs

235,000 ESALs

SECTION 3 (South)
Summary of Cracked Slabs (9
cm)
ESAL

Load
(kN)

Load
40kN

4.2

* Passes *

Cracks
9 cm
Plain /
Granular

Cracks
9cm FRC /
Granular

Passes

Cumulative
Passes

ESALs

Cumulative
ESALs

22

2,643

2,643

4,477

4,477

0/7

0/7

22

2,778

5,421

4,706

9,183

0/7

0/7

40

3,000

8,421

60,000

69,183

0/7

0/7

40

309

8,730

6,180

75,363

0/7

0/7

40

5,875

14,605

117,500

192,863

4/7

1/7

40

2,053

16,658

41,060

233,923

4/7

2/7

53

10

16,668

670

234,592

7/7

3/7

Total

16,668

7/7

3/7

234,592

Cracking on 9 cm Section

Section 3A (South)
9 cm Plain Concrete
VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS
8 mm - Plain Concrete - Vertical LVDT - Spring

0.3

53 kN

Rebound Deflection (in)

0.25

22 kN

40 kN

0.2

51 M
51 R
52 L
52 M
52 R
53 L

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Passes

10000

12000

14000

16000

Section 3B (South)
9 cm FRC
VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS
8 mm - Fiber Reinforce Concrete - Vertical LVDT - Spring

0.3

Rebound Deflection (in)

0.25

53 kN
22 kN

40 kN

0.2

57 R
58 L
58 M
58 R
59 L
59 M

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Passes

10000

12000

14000

16000

Section 3 (South)
9 cm PCC & FRC
LOAD TRANSFER EFFICIENCY
Section 3 - LTE
160
140

22 kN

Efficiency (%)

120

40 kN
53 kN

100
80

Joint 51

60

Joint 58

40
20
0
0

5000

10000

Passes

15000

Section 3 North
9 cm Longitudinal Joint (40 kN)

Longitudinal Joint

FRC

March 12, 2009

Plain

Section 3 (North) Wheel Path Loading

Final Crack Map

9 cm - Plain

48,000 ESALs 64,000 ESALs

Slab 49

50

51
51

52
52

53
53

9 cm - FRC

4700 ESALs

56
Slab 56

57
57

58
58

59
59

60
60
60

54
54

61
61
61

55
55

62
62
62

Percent Slab Cracking:

9 cm Concrete Slabs with/without Fibers
100

90

80

Plain (South)

Cracked Slabs (%)

70

FRC (South)
60

50

Plain, Wheel Path

(North)

40

FRC, Wheel Path

(North)

30

Plain, Longitudinal
(North)

20

FRC, Longitudinal
(North)

10

0.00E+00

5.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.50E+05
ESALs

2.00E+05

2.50E+05

SECTION 2 (North)
CRACK FORMATION
5/9/08

Slab 23

24

25

Slab 34

35

36

26

37

5/10/08

27

28

38

39

29

40

5/12/08

30

31

32

41

42

43

33

44

20 cm

15 cm

5/5/08

14 Million ESALs

17.2 Million ESALs 19.2 Million ESALs 19.6 Million ESALs

SECTION 2 (South) - 15 and 20cm

Summary of Cracked Slabs
Passes

Cumulative
Passes

Cumulative
ESALs

Cracks
15 cm /
Granular

Cumulative
ESALs

Cracks
20 cm /
Granular

40

7287

12,662

139,182

0/7

118,778

0/7

66

6150

13,437

1,143,042

0/7

975,476

0/7

89

10,227

23,664

6,731,462

0/7

5,744,651

0/7

111

6995

30,659

16,489,232

2/7

14,071,963

0/7

111

2651

33,310

20,187,281

3/7

17,227,889

0/7

111

1655

34,965

22,495,945

3/7

19,198,111

0/7

156

75

35,040

22,925,840

4/7

19,564,984

0/7

TOTAL

35,040

Load
(kN)

4/7

0/7

15 and 20 cm Cracking Performance

Section 2A (South)
15cm Plain Concrete
TENSILE STRAINS
S ec tion
- S train
150
mm2A- Strain
350
40kN

67kN

89kN

111kN

156kN

300

Mic ros train

250
200

30J
30E

150

31J
31E

100
50
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

P as s es

25000

30000

35000

40000

Section 2B (South)
20cm Plain Concrete
TENSILE STRAINS
S E C T IO N 2B - S train

200 mm - Strain
350
40kN

67kN

89kN

111kN

156kN

300

Mic ros train

250
200

37J
37E

150

38J
38E

100
50
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

P as s es

25000

30000

35000

40000

Section 2A (South)
15cm Plain Concrete
VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS
S E C T IO N 2A
- VE
R T IC AL L VDT S
150
mm
0.35

40kN

67kN

89kN

111kN

156kN

R ebound Deflec tions (in)

0.3
0.25
29R

0.2

30L
30M

0.15

30R
31L

0.1

31M
0.05
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

P as s es

25000

30000

35000

40000

Section 2B (South)
20cm Plain Concrete
VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS
S E C T IO N 2B - VE R T IC AL L VDT S

200 mm

0.35

40kN

67kN

89kN

111kN

156kN

R ebound Deflec tions (in)

0.3
0.25
36R

0.2

37L
37M

0.15

37R
38L

0.1

38M
0.05
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

P as s es

25000

30000

35000

40000

Section 2 (South)
LOAD TRANSFER EFFICIENCY
S ec tion 2 - L T E
120
40kN

67kN

89kN

111kN

156kN

E ffic ienc y (% )

100
80
J oint 29

60

J oint 30
J oint 36

40

J oint 37

20
0
0

5000

10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

P as s es

Permanent Deformation
Section 2a 15cm Plain Concrete
40 kN Wheel Load
9 kips loading test - Section 2a - VERTICAL LVDTS - Permanent or Plastic Deformation
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

-0.01

DISPLACEMENT (inches)

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

-0.06

-0.07
Passes
LVDT 1

LVDT 2

LVDT 3

LVDT 4

LVDT 5

LVDT 6

8000

Section 2 (North)
CRACK FORMATION

20 cm

15 cm

April 2009
17 Million ESALs

Slab 27

28

29

30

31

32

33

51 Million ESALs

Slab 34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Percent Slab Cracking:

15 cm and 20 cm Concrete Slabs
100
90

% Slabs Cracked

80
70
60

15cm (South)
20cm (South)

50

15cm (North)
20cm (North)

40
30
20
10
0
0.00E+00

1.00E+07

2.00E+07

3.00E+07

ESALs

4.00E+07

5.00E+07

6.00E+07

Section 1 (10 cm and 15 cm)

Concrete Slabs on Asphalt Concrete Base
1.8m

1.8m

Concrete

h=10cm & 15cm

Asphalt Concrete

21.5cm & 14cm

(a)

40m

Fiber reinforced
concrete

Plain concrete

1.8m
1.8m

2
free edge

h=10cm

1
(a)

h= 15 cm

SECTION 1 (South) Asphalt Base

CRACK FORMATION
6

10

11

Slab 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

15 cm

10 cm

Slab 5

57.5 Million ESALs

SECTION 1 (South) - 10 and 15 cm

Summary of Cracked Slabs
Load
(lb)

Passes

Cumulative
Passes

ESALs

Cumulative
ESALs

Cracks
10 cm /
Asphalt

Cracks
15 cm /
Asphalt

9,000

2,506

2,506

50,120

50,120

15,000

2,500

5,006

427,302

477,422

18,000

2,500

7,506

918,959

1,396,381

21,000

3,499

11,005

2,457,403

3,853,784

25,000

1,126

12,131

1,644,742

5,498,526

25,000

1,211

13,342

1,768,901

7,267,428

28,000

2,300

15,642

5,407,581

12,675,009

31,000

2,200

17,842

7,931,462

20,606,471

34,000

25

17,867

132,850

20,739,321

35,000

2,730

20,597

16,385,507

37,124,828

35,000

1,170

21,767

7,022,360

44,147,188

33,000

1,642

23,409

7,697,384

51,844,572

33,000

347

23,756

1,626,670

53,471,243

33,000

274

24,030

1,284,460

54,755,703

33,000

62

24,092

290,644

55,046,347

35,000

416

24,508

2,496,839

57,543,186

Total

24,508

7/7

1/7

5.75E+07

Section 1 (South)
10 & 15 cm Plain Concrete
TENSILE STRAINS

9 kips

18 kips
15 kips

21kips

33kips

31kips

25kips
28kips

35kips

35kips

Section 1A (South)
10 cm Plain Concrete
VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS

9 kips

18 kips
15 kips

21kips

33kips

31kips

25kips
28kips

35kips

35kips

Section 1 (South)
LOAD TRANSFER EFFICIENCY

10 cm

SECTION 1 (North) Asphalt Base

CRACK FORMATION

10

11

Slab 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

15 cm

Slab 5

69.3 Million ESALs

SECTION 1 (North) - 10 and 15 cm

Summary of Cracked Slabs
Load
(lb)

Passes

Cumulative
Passes

ESALs

Cumulative
ESALs

Cracks
10cm. / Asphalt

Cracks
15 cm / Asphalt

9,000

2,700

2,700

54,000

54,000

15,000

2,500

5,200

427,302

481,302

21,000

2,230

7,430

1,566,164

2,047,466

21,000

270

7,700

189,625

2,237,092

25,000

136

7,836

198,654

2,435,746

25,000

2,680

10,516

3,914,662

6,350,408

30,000

4,870

15,386

15,298,529

21,648,938

*Trafficking on 6 in. slabs only.

35,000

500

15,886

3,001,009

24,649,946

35,000

1,000

16,886

6,002,017

30,651,964

35,000

3,500

20,386

21,007,061

51,659,024

35,000

2,954

23,340

17,729,959

69,388,983

Total

23,340

7/7

4/7

69,388,983

Section 1 - 10 cm Slabs
Fatigue Cracking Failure

North
Larger amount of
moisture present

South

Percent Slab Cracking:

10 and 15 cm Slabs on Asphalt Concrete
100
90
80

% Slabs Cracked

70
60

10cm (South)
15cm (South)
10cm (North)
15cm (North)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0E+00

1.0E+07

2.0E+07

3.0E+07

4.0E+07

ESALs

5.0E+07

6.0E+07

7.0E+07

8.0E+07

Application for Overloaded Vehicles

20 cm slabs
51 million ESALs without cracks
16 t wheel load (155kN) for 8,000 passes

Laboratory slab capacity tests: 10 & 15cm

9 cm Peak Loads (FRC)

15 cm Peak Loads

80 kN
100 to 145 kN

Concrete Slab Size effect?

Thinner slabs are nominally stronger
Bazant et al.

9cm and 15cm

Concrete Slab Tests

1.8 x1.8m slab geometry

Test Data

Slab Load Capacity

15cm

9cm

Maximum Allowed Single

wheel Load 40 kN

Effect of Support Layer Stiffness

Soil CBR has large impact on cracking especially

for thinner slabs (~10cm)
Frozen soil test (or granular soil)
Spring thaw test
Spring test

Base type has a tremendous effect on fatigue life

of slab

Granular base vs. asphalt concrete base

Effects of Structural Fibers on Slab

Performance

Verified previous finding on fibers influence on

concrete slab resistance to cracking
Four benefits of structural fibers:
Extend fatigue life
Slow rate of crack deterioration
Promote load transfer
Eliminate need for lateral restraint pins

Economical feasible for slabs < 15 cm to 20 cm (?)

Lateral Restraint Pins

Use fibers in concrete

How did the Joints Perform?

Are dowels needed at high traffic levels?
What was the long term load transfer?
Will faulting or slab misalignment?
Did fibers help joint performance?

40kN

120

67kN

S ec tion 2 - L T E
89kN
111kN

156kN

E ffic ienc y (% )

100
80
J oint 29

60

J oint 30
J oint 36

40

J oint 37

20
0
0

5000

10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

P as s es

Slab Response Analysis

ISLAB2000 vs. Measured

Deflection basins match reasonable well

FWD results
Moving wheel load

Predicted strains are slightly higher than

measured
Built-in curling ~ -5C

Summary of Testing

9 cm section with high CBR (frozen soil)

9 cm section cracks began in Spring 2008

230,000 ESALs w/o cracks

75,000 and 193,000 ESALs

Fiber reinforced concrete outperformed plain

concrete (9 cm)
Free edge, wheel path, longitudinal joint
Less cracks
More functional after cracks

Summary, cont

15 cm fatigue cracking performance

12 million ESALs on granular base (average)
30 million ESALs on asphalt concrete base (average)

20 cm no fatigue cracks at 51 million ESALs

Permanent deformation caused cracking

Base/subgrade
CBR = 3 to 4 of soil

Higher deformations initially at joints with wide cracks

No transverse faulting measured under APT

Practical Observations:
Keys to Slab System Performance

No pumping of base/soil layer

Low permanent deformation of base/soil

< 15 cm to 20cm (?)

Edge support

Limited curling

Structural Fibers for slabs

min. thickness = 15 cm

Full-support of slab

Lower fines content in base layer

shoulder or curb/gutter

Will improve fatigue life

Concrete Slab vs. Beam failure!

Questions / Comments

jroesler@illinois.edu
217-265-0218

Recent Projects with

Optimized Slab Geometry
Design Concept

Ruta 5: km-251

Condiciones actuales
CTB con Kc = 137 Mpa/m
Espesor 22cm -23 cm

TCP Design

50.000.000 EE
16 cm
Hormign 4,8 Mpa Flexotraccin
10 % losas agrietadas como umbral de diseo
2 m x 1.75 m
Corte delgado sin Sello
Sin fierros, solo en junta de construccin
Pines laterales de confinamientos

Ruta 5: km-251

Caso 2: Sodimac (Chile)

CBR 15%
60 cm CBR 40% Plataforma
15 cm Base Granular < 8% finos
350 Camiones Diarios= 10.000.000 EE
30.000 m2
Santiago, Chile

Caso 2: Sodimac

Caso 2: Sodimac

Caso 3: MOP Punta Arenas (Chile)

CBR 10%
12 cm
50 cm CBR 60% Base no heladiza
15 cm Base < 8% finos
Hormign 4,8 Mpa
1.000.000 Esals
1 km

Case 3: MOP Punta Arenas

Case 3: MOP Punta Arenas

Case 4: Antigua Guatemala

TCP Design

Febrero 2006
80.000.000 EE
BTC con K = 110 Mpa/m
Asfalto 21 cm, Mal estado
Espesor diseo TCP 17 cm
20 % losas agrietadas
80cm x 180 cm
Corte delgado
Fierros solo juntas de construccin
Pines Laterales
11.07 km

Case 4: Antigua Guatemala 2007

Case 4: Antigua Guatemala 2007

Case 4: Antigua Guatemala 2009

Case 5 Terrapuerto Lima (Per)

CBR 15% Natural Soil

60 cm CBR 40% Construction Platform
15 cm Granular Base < 8% finos
Traffic 500 buses daily = 10.000.000 EE
30.000 m2
Lima, Peru

Case 5 Terrapuerto Lima

BM3 Acceso CA9 Sur (2005)

Guatemala

120.000.000 EE
15 Aos
Espesor 21 cm
Base: Granular y Asfalto deteriorado

Valdivia
2008
Base Granular
8 cm and 12 cm Concrete

Etac (Chile)
2008
12 cm concrete
Granular base

Salinas y Fabres 2008

Chile

50.000 EE
8 cm

Megacentro Pto Montt.

2008
11 cm
500.000 EE

Planta Los Fiordos (Chile)

2007
3.000.000 EE
Base Granular
15 cm

Tottus Mall Trujillo (Per)

2007
3.000.000 EE
Base Granular
14 cm

Chincha (Per)

DC
2007
Granular Base
4.000.000 Esals
14 cm concrete

Confiper (Per)
2007
Old concrete
pavement
3.000.000 Esals
12 cm