Analysis of in-service PCC pavement responses from Denver International Airport

Transcription

1 Analysis of in-service PCC pavement responses from Denver International Airport Dulce Rufino ERES Consultants, A Division of ARA, Inc. Presented at ISU Spring Transportation Seminar February 2, 24

2 Overview DIA project background Prediction of pavement parameters Aircraft loading and wander Pavement layer properties Pavement temperature Concrete joint characteristics Analysis of temperature curling Analysis of interface condition Conclusions

3 The Denver International Airport Instrumentation Project

4 Runway instrumentation Installed in the takeoff area of runway 34R 16L during construction Static and dynamic sensors collecting data under climatic and aircraft loading 8 ft 16 instrumented slabs 75 ft 4 ft

5 Pavement structure ft Direction of traffic ±17 in 8 in 12 in 5 to 1 ft 2. ft Portland cement concrete Cement treated base Lime stabilized subbase Silty clay subgrade Bond break layer

6 Joint design Doweled Doweled joint Dowel bar Dummy Hinged Doweled Hinged Doweled Hinged joint Dummy Tie bar Asphalt shoulder Dummy Doweled Runway cen terline Dummy joint Aggregate interlock

7 Position sensors A B C D 4 P P position 1 ft 1 P18 P1 Runway C

8 H-bar sensors bar sensors D C B A H3 H14 H28 H34 H27 H29 H2 H5 H56 H1 H23 H57 H7 H75 H69 *H4 H71&H78 H15&H81 H6 H7 H58 H59 H52 H43 H11 H19 H42 H79 H13 H67 H83 H86 H47 H64 H66 H72 H73 HSPR4 H3* H77 H76 H41 H17 H49 H48 H55 H44 H89 H8 H84 H82 H21 H22 *H1 H62 H74 *H53 H88 H87 *H65 H46 H85 *H9 H45 H26 H25 H16 H2 H24 H12 H68 H63 H61 H6 H51 H18 H8 H54 H5 H36 H93 H59 H36 H95 H99 HB1(T) H33 H9 H37 H39 H32 H94 H38 H96 H91 H97 H35 H31 H98 Runway C

9 A LVDT sensors B C D Gage: Depth (in) G1: 9 G2: 26 G3: 38 G4: 5 MDD1 SDD11 MDD SDD SDD15 MDD3 SDD2 MDD4 SDD13 MDD2 SDD12 MDD7 MDD1 MDD5 MDD6 MDD9 SDD16 SDD14 SDD19 SDD17 SDD18 MDD8 1 Runway C

10 A Thermocouples B C D 4 3 T1-T22P1 T1-T22P1 T1-T8P2 T1-T22P1 T1-T8P2 2 T1-T8P2 1 Runway C

11 Depth of thermocouples Depth (in) PCC slab Cement treated base Lime stabilized subbase Silty clay subgrade Slab B3 Slab C3 17 in 8 in 12 in

12 DIA Database DIA data is accessible through the Internet at Aircraft data: event number, triggered sensor, complete record (793.4MB) Aircraft Number Size (MB) B B B B B B DC MD Temperature data: date, time, and temperature profile (14.5 MB) Displacement and strain data: event number, number of peaks, interval time, start and end time, offset right and left, peak value and time Displacement: 5 LVDT s (77.1 MB) 1 SDD s and 4 MDD s Strain: 23 Carlson (45.2 MB) 92 H-Bars (91.7 MB) Total: 1 GB

13 Aircraft Location and Wander Analysis

14 Position sensors A B C D 4 P P position 1 ft 1 P18 P1 Runway C

15 Case 1 Main gear Number of position sensors triggered Methodology Triggered position sensor 5 3 Non-triggered position sensor Undefined wheel position Defined wheel position 6 7 Body or nose gear

16 Methodology (cont.) y = a x + b a = y x 2 2 y x C Row 2 D (x 2,y 2 ) Runway C 4 x = y b = y 1 y x1 x 2 x 1 y x 2 2 y y1 x x 1 y y 2 y 1 1 ( x x ) 2 1 y (ft) Row 1 (x,y) X (x s,y s ) (x 1,y 1 ) x (ft) 37.5

17 Number of passes Aircraft Before filtering location After filtering location All W/ weight All W/ weight B B B B B B DC MD

18 C B-727 events D Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Position P38 P37 P36 P35 P34 P33 P32 P31 P3 P29 P28 P27 P26 P25 P24 P23 P22 P21 Sensor x-coordinate Average: 27.3 ft Std deviation: 2.5 ft ROW ft Center of main gear 8.4 ft MIDDLE Nose gear Average: 27.6 ft Std deviation: 2.4 ft 3 y x S=34. in (2 1 ) Frequency (%) P18 P17 P16 P15 P14 P13 P12 P11 P1 P9 P8 P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 Sensor Average: 27.9 ft Std deviation: 2.5 ft ROW 1 17 Runway C

19 Runway offset 8 ROW 2 7 Longitudinal distance (ft) ROW 1 MD-8 B-737 B B-757 B-767 B-777 B-747 DC Runway average offset (ft)

20 Wander and Pavement Design Aircraft path distribution f(x) = σ 1 2π e x µ.5 σ 2 Load location relative to the joints

21 Single axle Longitudinal joint Wheel path distribution per in.25 Runway C B727 B737 MD x-coordinate (in)

22 Tandem axle Longitudinal joint Wheel path distribution per in Runway C B757 B767 DC x-coordinate (in)

23 Wheel path distribution per in B747 and B777 Longitudinal joint Runway C B747 B x-coordinate (in)

24 Backcalculation of Pavement Layer Properties

25 Pavement evaluation at DIA A B C D 4 7 ft Date: 5/3/95 9/15/95 3/2/96 4/8/97 7/31/97 6/6/ 3 5 ft 2 3 ft 1 1 ft Runway C

26 Backcalculation 5.9 in x Deflection basin D 12 in D1 HWD plate D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

27 Comparison between different models PCC slab (elastic layer and plate) PCC slab (elastic layer and plate) Bonded and unbonded CTB (elastic layer and plate)

28 Factorial run performed with DIPLOMAT E = 1, to 15, ksi (at 25 ksi) PCC slab (elastic layer and plate) µ = in k = 5 to 1,3 psi/in (at 2 psi/in) Subgrade Total of 2 35,682 cases E = 3, to 15, ksi (at 25 ksi) E = 1, to 3, ksi (at 2 ksi) PCC slab (elastic layer) µ =.15 CTB (elastic layer) µ = in Bonded and Unbonded 8 in k = 5 to 1,3 psi/in (at 2 psi/in) Subgrade Total of 2 48,576 cases

29 Slab modulus of elasticity for different models based on DIA 1.6E+7 Slab modulus of elasticity (psi) 1.4E+7 1.2E+7 1.E+7 8.E+6 6.E+6 4.E+6 2.E+6.E+ 1PL 1EL 2EL-B 2EL-U Cumulative frequency distribution (%)

30 Modulus of subgrade reaction for different models based on DIA 8 k-value (psi/in) PL 1EL 2EL-B 2EL-U Cumulative frequency distribution (%)

31 Prediction of Pavement Temperature and Its Effect on Joint Behavior

32 A Thermocouples B C D 4 3 T1-T22P1 T1-T22P1 T1-T8P2 T1-T22P1 T1-T8P2 2 T1-T8P2 1 Runway C

33 Data collection Sensor Slab T1-T8P2 B C T1-T22P1 B C Collected combined data: 9,57 Annual data: 8,76 Total data: 43,8

34 Prediction of pavement temperature using Integrated-Climatic Model (ICM) Thermal conductivity Material properties Heat capacity Emissivity factor Surface short-wave absorptivity Air temperature Climatic data Obtained from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Precipitation Percent sunshine Wind speed Radiation

35 Depth of thermocouples and ICM nodes Depth (in) PCC slab Cement treated base Lime stabilized subbase Silty clay subgrade 18 in 8 in 12 in Slab B3 Slab C3 ICM ICM nodes at 1 in. interval 6 in 98

36 Cumulative frequency distribution (%) N=9,57 Measured versus predicted temperature differential Sorted measured temperature Paired predicted temperature Concrete thermal conductivity (CTC):.4 BTU/hr ft F Heat capacity:.2 BTU/lb F Emissivity factor:.65 Surface short-wave absorvity: Temperature differential ( o F)

37 Differential pavement temperature distribution Cumulative frequency distribution (%) Predicted Measured Concrete thermal conductivity (CTC):.4 BTU/hr ft F Heat capacity:.2 BTU/lb F Emissivity factor:.65 Surface short-wave absorvity: Temperature differential ( o F)

38 Cumulative frequency distribution (%) Measured versus predicted average pavement temperature Concrete thermal conductivity (CTC):.4 BTU/hr ft F Heat capacity:.2 BTU/lb F Emissivity factor:.65 Surface short-wave absorvity:.65 N=9,57 Sorted measured temperature Paired predicted temperature Average pavement temperature ( o F)

39 Average pavement temperature distribution Cumulative frequency distribution (%) Predicted Measured Concrete thermal conductivity (CTC):.4 BTU/hr ft F Heat capacity:.2 BTU/lb F Emissivity factor:.65 Surface short-wave absorvity: Average pavement temperature ( o F)

40 Joint gages A B C D 4 Gage (Depth) Slab east, north (ft) Dummy 12, (ft) J96_R (17.7 in) 3 Dummy J93_R (17.7 in) J94_R (9.6 in) J897_R (17.1 in) J92_R (3.4 in),2 (ft) J898_R (16.8 in) J95_R (9.7 in),6 (ft) 2, (ft) 2 12,2 (ft) J899_R (17.5 in) J91_R (1.3 in) Dummy J9_R (17.5 in) (13,2) 1 Hinged Doweled Hinged Runway C

41 Spring Relative joint opening (mils) Relative joint opening (mils) Dummy joint opening by season (of) Average pavement temperature (of) Fall Relative joint opening (mils) Relative jointp opening (mils) g( ) 4-9 Average pavement temperature -1 Summer 5 5 Winter Average pavement temperature (of) Average pavement temperature (of)

42 Hinged joint opening by season Relative joint opening (mils) Spring Summer Fall Winter Average pavement temperature ( o F)

43 Load transfer efficiency A B C D 4 Date: Test # 5/3/95: 9, 32 9/16/95: 33 3/3/96: 1, 34 4/12/97: 31 8/1/97: 83 3 Dummy Dummy T6 1 in. from the edge T4 T7 T5 6. ft T3 9. ft TS-3 1 in. from the edge TS-2 TS ft 5. ft 48.5 ft 41. ft 4.5 ft ft 1 Dummy Hinged Doweled 1.5 ft 4.5 ft T1 Hinged T2 2.5 ft 19.5 ft Note. 5 tests were performed for test # 9 at each position (total of 8). Runway C

44 1 LTE for doweled joints LTE (%) T5-E T5-W Average pavement temperature (F)

45 1 Prediction of LTE for dummy joints 9 8 LTE =.112xAPT xAPT R 2 = LTE (%) points Average pavement temperature (F)

46 Frequency of predicted dummy joint LTE for seven years Cumulative frequency distribution (%) Concrete thermal conductivity (CTC):.4 BTU/hr ft F Heat capacity:.2 BTU/lb F Emissivity factor:.65 Surface short-wave absorvity: LTE (%)

47 1 LTE for hinged joints LTE (%) T3-E T3-W T4-E T4-W T5-E T5-W T7-E T7-W Average pavement temperature (F)

48 Effects of Temperature Curling on Airfield Pavement Responses

49 Theoretical analysis Load: 36,-lb single wheel Size: 15-in. by 15-in. Tire pressure: 16 psi Temperature: Linear and nonlinear 523 randomly selected cases Ly = 2 ft Lx = 2 ft x y E=5,, psi α=5.5x1-6 in/in/ o F µ = in k= 45 (psi/in)

50 Theoretical effect on stress Linear NonLinear Only Load Interior bottom stress (psi) Edge bottom stress (psi) Corner critical stress (psi) TOTAL stress Temperature differential ( o F) Temperature differential ( o F) Temperature differential ( o F) bottom top Interior bottom stress (psi) Edge bottom stress (psi) Corner top stress (psi) CHANGE in stress Temperature differential ( o F) Temperature differential ( o F) Temperature differential ( o F)

51 Theoretical effect on deflection and stress Linear NonLinear Only Load Interior deflection ( )(mils) Edge deflection (mils) Corner deflection (mils) CHANGE in deflection Temperature differential ( o F) Temperature differential ( o F) Temperature differential ( o F) Interior bottom stress (psi) Edge bottom stress (psi) Corner top stress (psi) CHANGE in stress Temperature differential ( o F) Temperature differential ( o F) Temperature differential ( o F)

52 Aircraft weight used to normalize pavement response Aircraft type Number of events Average total weight (kips) Std dev total weight (kips) Average wheel weight (kips) B B B DC

53 Runway C Selected LVDTs for a detailed measured deflection analysis C D SDD15 3 SDD2 MDD7 MDD1 MDD5 Dummy joint SDD13 SDD16 MDD4 MDD6 SDD14 SDD17 MDD9 SDD19 Aircraft travel 2 Hinged joint SDD18 MDD8 Doweled joint

54 Measured B-727 B interior deflection Temperature differential ( o F) Deflection (mils) MDD7 MDD8 MDD1 SDD18

55 Measured B-727 B dummy TJ deflection Temperature differential ( o F) Deflection (mils) MDD6 MDD9 SDD16 SDD17 SDD19

56 Measured B-727 B hinged LJ deflection Temperature differential ( o F) Deflection (mils) MDD5 SDD15 SDD2

57 Measured B-727 B corner deflection Temperature differential ( o F) Deflection (mils) MDD4 SDD13 SDD14

58 Summary of normalized mean deflections Location or Aircraft load level B727 B737 B757 DC-1 Interior (mils) TJ (mils) LJ (mils) Corner (mils) Wheel Load (kips) Gear Load (kips)

59 Selected strain gages Doweled joint HB24 HB25 HB26 (452) (9669) (9765) C4 D4 Runway C Hinged joint Doweled joint Dummy joint HB21 (11417) HB82 HB84 (2654) (1565) C3 D3 HB41 (2873) HB51 HB8 (118) (2363) Dummy joint HB19 (7836) C2 D2 HB52 (181) (5117) Dummy HB58 HB71 (1923) (3754) HB81 (6488) (442) joint HB56 HB23 HB5 (11597) C1 D1 Doweled join t (977) (6742) HB3 HB29

60 Measured B-727 B interior strain Temperature differential ( o F) Tensile strain (µε) HB71 HB81 HB41

61 Measured B-727 B TJ dummy strain Temperature differential ( o F) Tensile strain (µε) HB19 HB84 HB21 HB5

62 Measured B-727 B doweled TJ strain Temperature differential ( o F) Tensile strain (µε) HB3 HB29 HB25 HB26

63 Summary of measured strains Location Aircraft B727 B737 B757 DC1 Interior (microns) TJ dummy (microns) TJ doweled (microns) LJ (microns) Wheel Load (kips) Gear Load (kips)

64 Analysis of Slab-base base Interface Interaction

65 Sliding friction Foundation Concrete slab F H F RH Contact friction Foundation Concrete slab F W Before wheel load After wheel load F RW

66 Sliding friction Many theoretical and experimental studies Traditionally long slabs Recently short slabs Composite plate concept Contact friction Intermediate levels of contact friction (Rollings, 1988) Design of UTW ISLAB2 Limited field studies

67 Multi-depth LVDT sensors C D 3 MDD3 MDD5 MDD7 MDD4 MDD6 MDD9 MDD2 2 Gage: Depth (in) G1: 9 G2: 26 MDD8 Runway C

68 Daytime condition G1 G1 PCC slab G1-G2 G1-G2 G2 G2 CTB Subbase Subgrade Anchorage

69 Nighttime condition G1-G2 G1 G2 G1 G1-G2 G2 PCC slab CTB Subbase Subgrade Anchorage

70 Corner deflection versus temperature differential Temperature differential ( o F) G1 (mils) MDD4 4

71 Interface corner deflection versus temperature differential Temperature differential ( o F) ( ) G1-G2 (mils) MDD4

72 Interface TJ deflection versus temperature differential Temperature differential ( o F) ( ) G1-G2 (mils) MDD6 MDD9

73 Interface LJ deflection versus temperature differential Temperature differential ( o F) ( ) G1-G2 (mils) MDD5 4

74 Interface interior deflection versus temperature differential Temperature differential ( o F) G1-G2 (mils) MDD7 MDD8

75 Selected paired strain gages Selected paired strain gages Doweled joint HB2 HB24 HB16 HB25 HB45 HB26 C4 D4 Runway C Doweled joint Dummy joint Dummy joint Dummy joint C3 D3 HB5 HB51 HB18 HB12 C2 D2 HB59 HB58 HB1 HB56 HB15 HB71 HB22 HB21 HB1 HB41 HB7 HB42 HB19 HB78 HB81 C1 D1 Doweled join t HB14 HB3 HB27 HB29

76 Interface condition Pε T corrected d T d B Pε T h PCC NA Pε B x If Pε < Then: P P Pε Bcorrected ε T corrected = PεT ( dt ) CSPD PεT corrected = PεT + ( dt ) CSPD ε = Pε + ( x) CSPD Pε = Pε + ( x) CSPD B corrected B CSPD = Pε d B B + Pε d T If Pε > Then: T B corrected B

77 Comparison between top and bottom slab at the slab interior 1 75 HB15 - Strain at the top (µε) HB71 - Strain at the bottom (µε)

78 Comparison between top and bottom slab at the slab longitudinal hinged joint 1 75 HB59 - Strain at the top (µε) HB58 - Strain at the bottom (µε)

79 Comparison between top and bottom slab at the slab dummy transverse joint 1 75 HB42 - Strain at the top (µε) HB19 - Strain at the bottom (µε)

80 Comparison between top and bottom slab at the slab doweled transverse joint 1 75 HB16 - Strain at the top (µε) HB25 - Strain at the bottom (µε)

81 Comparison between strain at the bottom of the slab and at the top of the base HB7 - Strain at the top (µε) 1 75 Interior HB41 - Strain at the bottom (µε) HB1 - Strain at the top (µε) 1 75 Dummy joint HB21 - Strain at the bottom (µε)

82 Summary of temperature differential effect on measured interface parameter 2ε B /( ε B + ε T ) Interior (15-71) Hinged (59-58) Dummy (42-19) Doweled (16-25) negative combined positive

83 2ε B /( ε B + ε T ) Effect of load location on measured interface parameter Cumulative frequency distribution (%) Interior Dummy joint Doweled joint Hinged joint Hinged Doweled Dummy Interior

84 Measured versus predicted responses C D 4 Hinged Doweled Dummy 3 LTE x =85% Line n LTE y =f(t) Dummy 2 y x Runway C

85 Selected gages for a detailed analysis HB82 HB84 D3 MDD5 MDD7 HB41 MDD1 HB8 MDD4 SDD16 MDD6 MDD9

86 Measured and predicted B-727 B interior strain (HB41) -1 Cumulative frequency distribution (number of events) Strain (µε) Measured Unbonded Bonded

87 Measured and predicted B-727 B transverse joint strain (HB84) Cumulative frequency distribution (number of events) Strain (µε) Measured Unbonded Bonded

88 Measured and predicted DC-1 longitudinal joint strain (HB8) 1 Cumulative frequency distribution (number of events) Strain (µε) Measured Unbonded Bonded

89 Summary of comparison between measured and predicted tensile strains (µε( µε) B-727 B-737 B-757 DC-1 Interior (HB41) B-727 B-737 B-757 DC-1 TJ (HB82) B-727 B-737 B-757 DC-1 LJ (HB8) bonded measured unbonded B-727 B-737 B-757 DC-1 TJ (HB84)

90 Measured and predicted B-727 B interior deflection (MDD1) Measured Unbonded Bonded Deflection (mils) Cumulative frequency distribution (number of events)

91 Measured and predicted B-727 B TJ dummy deflection (MDD6) 35 Measured 3 Unbonded Bonded 25 Deflection (mils) Cumulative frequency distribution (number of events)

92 Measured and predicted DC-1 hinged LJ (MDD5) 35 Measured 3 Unbonded Bonded 25 Deflection (mils) Cumulative frequency distribution (number of events)

93 Measured and predicted DC-1 corner deflection (MDD4) 5 45 Measured 4 Unbonded Bonded 35 Deflection (mils) Cumulative frequency distribution (number of events)

94 Summary of comparison between measured and predicted deflection (mils) Interior (MDD1) LJ (MDD5) 35 3 B-727 B-737 B-757 DC-1 Corner (MDD4) 35 3 B-727 B-737 B-757 DC-1 TJ (MDD6) B-727 B-737 B-757 DC-1 B-727 B-737 B-757 DC-1 bonded measured unbonded

95 Conclusions

96 Normal distribution Wander Analysis B-777 and DC-1 had similar distributions Gear path distribution Interaction between gear type and joint location Adequate properties ICM evaluation Joint opening LTE Backcalculation Pavement Temperature

97 Temperature versus pavement response Theoretical analysis Effect of temperature distribution and type of response Analysis of measured responses Change in strain Interior (strong correlation) TJ dummy joint (strong correlation) TJ doweled joint (some correlation) LJ hinged joint (no correlation) Deflection Interior (some correlation) TJ dummy joint (strong correlation) LJ hinged joint (no correlation) Corner (some correlation) Effect of load magnitude Design implications Total or stress range? Which stress component causes failure?

98 Interface condition Gap analysis Temperature differential and location EBITD Paired strain analysis Location: interior, TJ and LJ Interface parameter and slab-base contact Measured versus predicted responses Strain Interior (bonded) TJ dummy joint (partial) LJ hinged joint (unbonded) Deflection Interior (bonded) TJ dummy joint (bonded) LJ hinged joint (bonded) Corner (partial)

99 Acknowledgments Iowa State University Center for Transportation Research and Education Midwest Transportation Consortium David Plazak Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Technology R&D Branch, at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center.