Concrete Overlays in Texas

90th Annual Transportation Short CourseOctober 12, 2016

Moon Won, P.E.Texas Tech University

1

Presentation Overview

• Concrete Pavement in Texas

• Overview of Concrete Overlays in Texas

• Performance of Concrete Overlays in Texas

• Current Efforts to Improve Concrete Overlays

• Summary

2

PCC Pavement in Texas

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

Lan

e M

iles

[mile

]

CRCP

CPCD

3TxDOT PMIS

General Concept in Current Overlay Type

Selection

4

Helga N. Torres., et al., Guide to the Design of Concrete Overlays Using Existing

Methodologies, DTFH61-06-H-00011 (Work Plan 13), National Concrete Pavement

Technology Center Institute for Transportation, Iowa State University, 2012

Overview of Concrete Overlays in Texas

• Overlay Structures

– CPCD on CPCD

– CRCP on CRCP

– Thin PCP on CRCP

– CRCP on CPCD

• Overlay Thickness: 2-in to 12-in

• Interface

– Bonded

– Unbonded

5

Overview of Concrete Overlays in Texas

6

Highway/Location ExistingPavement

Overlay Type Overlay Construction

Performance

Loop 610S/Houston

8-in CRCP 2-in & 3-in BCO 1983 Satisfactory

Loop 610N/Houston

8-in CRCP 4-in BCO 1986 Excellent

IH 35/Denton 10-in CPCD 11-in CPCD 1988 Satisfactory

IH 35E/Waxahachie 10-in CPCD 10-in CPCD 1990 Excellent

IH 10/Beaumont 10-in CPCD 12-in CPCD 1994 Excellent

IH 10/El Paso 8-in CRCP 6.5-in CRCP 1996 Mixed

SH 146/Baytown 8-in CRCP 3-in BCO 1998 Early Failure

US 281/Wichita Falls 8-in CRCP 4-in CRCP 2002 Excellent

US 75/Sherman 10-in CPCD 7-in CRCP 2010 Mixed

US 287/Bowie 8-in CRCP 4-in CRCP 2012 Premature Failure

Performance of Concrete Overlays in Texas

• Loop 610 South in Houston

• IH 35 in Denton

• IH 35 E in Waxahachie

• SH 146 in Baytown

• US 281 in Wichita Falls

• US 75 in Sherman

• US 287 in Bowie

7

1. S Loop 610 EB in Houston

Limits: From Doolittle Blvd to Calais Rd

Harris County

Completed in 1983

2-in & 3-in BCO

8-in existing CRCP

11

IH 35 NB_Denton

33.324244, -97.180385

CSJ: 0195-02-035

Denton County

Completed in 1988

11-in CPCD Overlay

220#/SY ACP Level Up

10-in existing CPCD

2. IH 35 in Denton

1960 Typical Section (DAL-IH 35 - 0195-02-016)

1987 Typical Section (DAL-IH 35 - 0195-02-035)

6-in Roadbed Treatment

6-in Roadbed Treatment (Type B)

Existing 10-in CPCD

10-in CPCD

11-in CPCD

13

03/23/2012 02/20/2016

14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

10

5

12

0

13

5

15

0

16

5

18

0

19

5

21

0

22

5

24

0

25

5

27

0

28

5

30

0

Load

Tra

nsf

er

Effi

cie

ncy

Def

lect

ion

@9

,00

0lb

s [m

ils]

Distance [ft]

Average Deflection (D1)

Average LTE

Deflection Testing

y = -3.61ln(x) + 10.888R² = 0.9704

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Ave

rage

De

fle

ctio

n [

mil

s]

Slab Thickness [in]

Statewide Average Deflection

16

Ellis County

Completed in 1990

10-in CPCD Slab

1.4-in ACP

10-in existing CPCD

3. IH 35E in Waxahachie

Pavement Structure (from LTPP database)

18

Deflection Testing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

1

2

3

4

50

15

30

45

60

75

90

10

5

12

0

13

5

15

0

16

5

18

0

19

5

21

0

22

5

24

0

25

5

27

0

28

5

30

0

Load

Tra

nsf

er

Effi

cie

ncy

Def

lect

ion

@9

,00

0lb

s

Distance [ft]

Average Deflection (D1)Average LTE

CSJ: 0389-13-XXX

Harris County

3-in BCO (built in 1998) + 8-in existing CRCP

3-in BCO

8-in existing CRCP

4. SH 146 in Baytown

23

24

CSJ: 0249-01-XXX

Wichita County

4-in BCO (built in 2002) + 8-in existing CRCP (built in 1969, CSJ: 0249-01-012)

4-in BCO

8-in existing CRCP

5. US 281 in Wichita Falls

29

FWD

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Near the Construction Joint Deflection Data

FWD

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Near the Construction Joint Deflection Data

FWD

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Near the Construction Joint Deflection Data

FWD

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Near the Construction Joint Deflection Data

FWD

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Near the Construction Joint Deflection Data

• From Travis Street in Sherman to FM 84

6. US 75 in Sherman

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

CP

CD

Def

lect

ion

@ 9

,00

0 lb

s [m

ils]

BC

O D

efle

ctio

n @

9,0

00

lbs

[mils

]

Joint #

CRCP (Mid Slab)CPCD (Joint-Mid Slab-Joint)

Distress PCP

CJ (J-45)

Morning Section

J-31 J-76, 80, 86, 92, 93, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107,110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116

J-56

Afternoon Section

Deflection (BCO vs CPCD) vs Distress

37

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120

BC

O D

efle

ctio

n @

9,0

00 lb

s [m

ils]

Range of Joint #

Frequency [N]

101 102 103 104 105

106 107 108 109 110

111 112 113 114 115

116 117 118 119 120

US75 - South – Start at Exit 64

U M D U M D U M D U M D A B B

M D A A B A B U M D A B C

U M D U M D U M D U M D U M D

A B C D B C DA B C DA A B C A B B C C

Joint 101-120Nu

mb

er

of

Dis

tre

ss [

N]

Distress Distribution

Joint #

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120

BC

O D

efle

ctio

n @

9,0

00 lb

s [m

ils]

Range of Joint #

Frequency [N]

101 102 103 104 105

106 107 108 109 110

111 112 113 114 115

116 117 118 119 120

US75 - South – Start at Exit 64

U M D U M D U M D U M D A B B

M D A A B A B U M D A B C

U M D U M D U M D U M D U M D

A B C D B C DA B C DA A B C A B B C C

Joint 101-120Nu

mb

er

of

Dis

tre

ss [

N]

Joint #38

J-111J-110

39

CSJ: 0013-005-XXX

Montague County

Overlaid with AC + 4-in BCO (built in Nov, 2012) + 8-in existing CRCP (built in 1972, CSJ 0013-005-017)

Overlaid with AC

4-in BCO

8-in existing CRCP

7. US 287 in Bowie

N 33˚ 30’ 04.53” W 97˚ 48’ 31.37”

Condition of Existing CRCP

41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

10

50

90

13

0

17

0

21

0

25

0

29

0

33

0

37

0

41

0

45

0

49

0

53

0

57

0

61

0

65

0

69

0

73

0

77

0

81

0

85

0

89

0

93

0

97

0

Def

lect

ion

@ 9

,00

0 lb

s

Distance [ft]

FWD deflection

42

y = -3.61ln(x) + 10.888R² = 0.9704

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Ave

rage

Def

lect

ion

[m

ils]

Slab Thickness [in]

Statewide Average Deflection

43

12/03/2010 04/25/2012

08/13/2013

44

STEP 3. Testing Device Setup STEP 4. Loading and Pull-Out

STEP 1. D=2-in Coring STEP 2. Disk Attachment

45

Schematic of Pull-Off Test

46

AREA

D1 D2 D3 D4 AVE. D [in2] [kN] [lb] [psi] [Mpa] N W

#1 1.99 1.99 1.989 1.988 1.989 3.11 N 33 29 45.27 W 97 48 18.65

#2 1.977 1.977 1.967 1.97 1.973 3.06 2.35 528 173 1.2

#3 1.976 1.985 1.971 1.971 1.976 3.07 1.60 360 117 0.8

#4 1.957 1.969 1.983 1.966 1.969 3.04 2.60 585 192 1.3

#5 1.989 1.98 1.983 1.98 1.983 3.09

#6 1.975 1.969 1.979 1.983 1.977 3.07

#7 1.978 1.974 1.978 1.985 1.979 3.08 2.50 562 183 1.3

#8 1.982 1.985 1.978 1.976 1.980 3.08 1.70 382 124 0.9

#9 1.963 1.962 1.972 1.979 1.969 3.04 2.70 607 199 1.4

#10 1.984 1.976 1.979 1.974 1.978 3.07 3.20 719 234 1.6

#11 1.992 1.986 1.978 1.968 1.981 3.08 3.10 697 226 1.6

#12 1.984 1.987 1.974 1.975 1.980 3.08 3.30 742 241 1.7

#13 1.983 1.987 1.98 1.976 1.982 3.08 2.30 517 168 1.2

#14 1.969 1.985 1.98 1.985 1.980 3.08 2.60 585 190 1.3 N 33 26 26.30 W 97 45 55.35

Standard Deviation, SD [psi] 40

Coefficient of Variation, COV [%] 22%

Base Broken [%] 7%

Analyzed Sample [%] 79%

Average Bond Strength [psi] 186

GPS Coordinates

FAILURE

BASE BROKEN

FAILURE

Failure [%] 14%

Test #Diameter of Core Specimen Load Bond Strength

Bond Strength Test Results

186 psi47

48

Current Efforts to Improve Concrete Overlays

• Research Project 0-6910

49

General Concept in Current Overlay Type

Selection

50

Helga N. Torres., et al., Guide to the Design of Concrete Overlays Using Existing

Methodologies, DTFH61-06-H-00011 (Work Plan 13), National Concrete Pavement

Technology Center Institute for Transportation, Iowa State University, 2012

Current Efforts to Improve Concrete Overlays

• Research Project 0-6910

• Threshold values for BCO/UBCO

• Improved design procedures

– AASHTO UBCO too conservative

• Construction specifications

51

Summary

• TxDOT has many miles of PCC pavement that

already exceeded or are approaching design lives.

• Concrete overlays could provide a cost-effective

rehabilitation method.

• Overall, the performance of concrete overlays in

Texas has been quite satisfactory, with some

exceptions.

• Efforts are underway to further improve PCC

overlay design/construction practices.

52