Improving the Performance of Full-Depth Repairs by Understanding the Failure Mechanisms

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In order to understand the reoccurring failures on the slabs or adjacent slabs that received Full-Depth Repair (FDR) treatments,efforts were made to investigate the causes of the failures on IH35W and US75. In addition, one successful FDR project on SH78was studied to verify and validate the hypothesis of the failure mechanisms. Load Transfer Efficiencies (LTEs) were evaluated with a falling weight deflectometer, and the base and subgrade moduli were determined by Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP). Cores were taken to examine the condition of the tie bars. Furthermore, design and construction practices were reviewed and evaluated. The common symptom for both IH35W and US75 projects was the poor LTE (less than 40%). When the LTE was lower, there were higher deflections, visible pumping, and settlement. Settlement is strongly related to the poor LTE. Tie bars were found to be ruptured in the US75 pavement, and they were not properly anchored in the IH35W pavement. Because of these ineffective tie bars, poor LTE and settlement was prevalent. On SH78, all LTEs remain above 90% even after 14 years of trafficking. The superior performance of the SH78 pavement suggests that proper procedures are critical when removing concrete and drilling holes for new tie bars, to avoid damage to, and subsequent failure of the adjacent slabs. The anchoring of the tie bar is critical to the performance of the FDR. Pull out tests should be performed to determine the type of epoxy, time before concrete pouring, embedment depth, and other construction parameters will provide adequate strength. Based on the DCP and field performance results, it is concluded that the most accurate indicator of joint performance is LTE, while the base and subgrade support are secondary.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 Tayabji, S., "The quest for long-life concrete pavements: from theory to practice" 1 (1): 4-, 2008
• 2 TxDOT, "Standard specifications for construction and maintenance of highways, Streets, and Bridge, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas"
• 3 Caltrans, "Slab replacement guidelines" California Department of Transportation 2004
• 4 Yoder, E. J, "Principles of pavement design" John Wiley 711-, 1975
• 5 ACPA, "Guidelines for full-depth repair" American Concrete Pavement Association 1995
• 6 ERES Consultants Division of ARA, Inc, "Guide for mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures, Final Report" National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council 2004
• 7 Chen, D.-H, "Field performance monitoring of repair treatments on joint concrete pavements" ASTM 36 (36): 119-127, 2008
• 8 American Society for Testing and Materials, "E488 - 96 Standard test methods for strength of anchors in concrete and masonry elements, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International,West Conshohocken, PA"
• 9 Chen, D.-H., "Developing A correlation between dynamic cone penetrometer data and pavement layer moduli" ASTM 28 (28): 42-49, 2005
• 10 Snyder, M. B, "Design procedure for dowel load-transfer systems for full-depth repair joints" Transportation Research 50-64, 1990
• 11 AASHTO, "AASHTO Guide for design of pavement structures" American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 1993