CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE 2010CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE - 2010

Concrete Paving SessionConcrete Paving Session

February 23, 2010 Greg Schiess1

2

3

CHANGECHANGE

4

TOPICS OF DISCUSSIONTOPICS OF DISCUSSION

Implementation of the new Design Guide and Implementation of the new Design Guide and related softwarePavement Type Selection Manual ReviewPavement Type Selection Manual ReviewAlternate Pavement Bidding Concrete Pavement Projects

5

HOW DO YOU DESIGN A PAVEMENT?

6

PAVEMENT DESIGNPAVEMENT DESIGN

How does traffic effect the pavement?How does traffic effect the pavement?

7

8

PAVEMENT DESIGNPAVEMENT DESIGN

What will the traffic be in the future?What will the traffic be in the future?

9

TRAFFIC PREDICTIONS TRAFFIC PREDICTIONS

10

POST-PANAMAX CARGO SHIPS

11

12

13

MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL PAVEMENT DESIGN GUIDEGUIDE

The Guide provides an “analysis tool” for The Guide provides an analysis tool for evaluating pavement structures using mechanistic-empirical principles, project mechanistic empirical principles, project specific traffic, climate, and materials data.

The software estimates damage accumulation ifi d t i lif over a specified pavement service life.

14

MECHANISTIC PAVEMENT DESIGN IS BASICALLY AN APPROACH WHERE A MODEL IS USED TO AN APPROACH WHERE A MODEL IS USED TO CALCULATE THE REACTION OF A PAVEMENT STRUCTURE WHEN SUBJECTED TO TRAFFIC STRUCTURE WHEN SUBJECTED TO TRAFFIC LOADING.

15

16

HOW DOES WEATHER CONTRIBUTE TO THE HOW DOES WEATHER CONTRIBUTE TO THE DETERIORATION OF HIGHWAY PAVEMENTS?

17

CURLING AND WARPING

Positive temp. gradient Negative temp. gradientN ti t di tPositive temp. gradientBottom Up Cracking

Negative temp. gradient& shrinkage of surfaceTop Down Cracking

Negative temp. gradient& shrinkage of surfaceTop Down Cracking

18

THE BIG PICTURETHE BIG PICTURE

EICM

Climate Inputs Material Properties Traffic

Transfer Functions

Predicted Performance Mechanistic Analysis

19

PAVEMENT DESIGN STATE OF THE ART

MEPDGAASHTO 93

Empirical MechanisticEmpirical Mechanistic

20

IMPLEMENTATION TAKES TIME

1958; Road Test i i i d

1989; LTPP i i i d

Time, yrs.AASHTO Guide MEPDG

initiated1962; AASHO Road Test

initiated1998; MEPDG initiated

4Road Test complete1972; Interim

initiated2007; MEPDG delivered

10;

Design Guide1986; Update

2009 Version 1.1 releases

24

311993; Update 2010 Version ??31

4545

21

MEPDG DEVELOPMENTMEPDG DEVELOPMENT

1986 AASHTO Design Guide Part IV: Recommended1986 AASHTO Design Guide, Part IV: Recommended development of Mechanistic based design procedure1996 National meeting and recommendations for M-E design1998-2004 Development & calibration under NCHRP 1-37A2004-2006 Independent review, NCHRP 1-40A2005 I d d t d l lid ti NCHRP 1 40B2005 Independent model validation, NCHRP 1-40B

22

MEPDG DEVELOPMENT CONTINUEDMEPDG DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED

2006 Improvements & Recalibration, NCHRP 1-40D006 p o s & a b a o , C 0Release Version 1.0 February 2007National meeting, 10-11 April 2007, Irvine, CANational meeting, 10 11 April 2007, Irvine, CAAASHTO balloting October 2007: Interim AASHTO MEPDGGReleased Version 1.1 September 2009

23

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEPDG IN FLORIDAIMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEPDG IN FLORIDA

Soil resilient modulus research 90’sResearch into the Coefficient of Thermal Research into the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) in 2006-08 (SMO and Dr. Ping)Began testing of concrete mixes in SMO for CTEg gCompleted local calibration and published Appendix E, Jan 2009 (CTE 6.0, 1.0 version of MEPDG software)MEPDG software)Meeting with cement and concrete industry reps June 2009 (Agreed to 5.4 CTE for design reps June 2009 (Agreed to 5.4 CTE for design and assign risk for CTE to the contractor)

24

IMPLEMENTATION CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION CONTINUED

Became aware of issue with the CTE values Became aware of issue with the CTE values used in the 1.0 and 1.1 version of software1 1 Version of software issued September 091.1 Version of software issued September 09Local calibration of the 1.1 version is underway

ith F d d Z lli gwith Fernando and ZollingerDeveloped the US 27 job with alternative pavement design experimenting with the 1.1 version of the Guide

25

IMPLEMENTATION CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION CONTINUED

AASHTO replaced TP 60 test method with T 336-p09December 7, 2009 FHWA issued a memo regarding the recalibration of the GuideDecember 21, 2009 meet with industry to discuss h CTE l d h f US 27 the CTE values and concrete strength for US 27

which resulted in using a CTE of 5.9 and f’c of 4500 psi4500 psiRecalibration of the national model due to the CTE issue to start in January 2010issue to start in January 2010

26

1.1 VERSION OF THE SOFTWARE1.1 VERSION OF THE SOFTWARE

27

TRAINING FOR THE GUIDETRAINING FOR THE GUIDE

Training sponsored by the FCPA and FDOT was Training sponsored by the FCPA and FDOT was conducted in Orlando, Tallahassee, Ft. Lauderdale and Jacksonville. Over 100 Lauderdale and Jacksonville. Over 100 attended the day and half course presented by Dr. Darter.Dr. Darter.

28

COEFFICIENT OF THERMAL EXPANSIONCOEFFICIENT OF THERMAL EXPANSION

Several studies in the past few years have Several studies in the past few years have identified CTE as one of the most significant inputs or classified as extremely sensitive input inputs or classified as extremely sensitive input in the MEPDG for designing rigid pavements.“If the models are not recalibrated the If the models are not recalibrated, the pavement thickness may be underestimated.” I t th t f id l ki g Impact on the amount of midpanel cracking and spalling.

29

CONCRETE COEFFICIENT OF THERMAL EXPANSION

20

6 5 10 6/F

15

rack

ed

6.5x10-6/F

10

t sla

bs c

5

Perc

ent 6.0x10-6/F

5.5x10-6/F

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

5.0x10-6/F

Age, years

30

CTE TEST RESULTS ON I-95

JMF: Coarse Aggregate (87-090), 7 day f’c 5010 psi, 28 day 7050psiT i STesting Summary:Number of Cores Tested: 48Average CTE: 5.63 x 10-6 in/in/°F (TP 60)

6Standard Deviation 0.26 x 10-6 in/in/°F CTE calculated using the value for 304 stainless steel of 17.3 x 10-6

in/in/°F that was provided in AASHTO TP 60.

CTE of Florida Calibration Specimen SMO 304 stainless steel calibration standard was subsequently d t i d t h CTE f 16 1 10 6 i /i /°F determined to have a CTE of 16.1 x 10-6 in/in/°F.

31

SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEANSO WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN

Concrete pavements for routes with a high Concrete pavements for routes with a high volume of heavy trucks will be thinner. (Pending the outcome of the recalibration)the outcome of the recalibration)A significant amount of research will still needs to be conductedto be conductedGood engineering judgment still remains a

j f t i t d igmajor factor in pavement design.

32

PAVEMENT TYPE SELECTIONPAVEMENT TYPE SELECTION

The FDOT Pavement Type Selection Manual is The FDOT Pavement Type Selection Manual is currently under review by Mr. Harold Von Quintus and Dr. Mike Darter. Quintus and Dr. Mike Darter. Comments were also solicited from both the asphalt and concrete industries and the asphalt and concrete industries and the Districts.

33

AREAS OF INTEREST – PTS REVIEWAREAS OF INTEREST PTS REVIEW

Initial design Initial design Cost for initial construction and the cost of each of the rehabilitation strategieseach of the rehabilitation strategiesScope of rehabilitation strategies Service life or the time between initial construction and the first rehab and any subsequent rehabs

34

AREAS OF INTEREST – PTS REVIEWAREAS OF INTEREST PTS REVIEW

Cost factors to be included such as users Cost factors to be included such as users delays costs, design, ancillary items, MOT and CEI for rehabilitation strategiesCEI for rehabilitation strategiesDisparity on the surface characteristics Di t R tDiscount RateInflation factors for some materialsPTS required of overlay projects

35

PAVEMENT TYPE SELECTIONPAVEMENT TYPE SELECTION

Life cycle cost analysis is a decision support Life cycle cost analysis is a decision support tool, and the results of the life cycle cost analysis are not decisions in and of analysis are not decisions in and of themselves.

36

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM REVIEW COMMITTEE

Probabilistic versus deterministic LCCA Probabilistic versus deterministic LCCA analysisM EPDG for HMA to develop equivalent M-EPDG for HMA to develop equivalent pavement designsAlt ti bid ( l id it i i f )Alternative bids (also provides unit price info)Survival curves allowing new technology to be reflecting in service life

37

ALTERNATE PAVEMENT BIDDINGALTERNATE PAVEMENT BIDDING

D i i l d b th t d h lt Designs include both a concrete and asphalt pavementFor the purpose of determining the low bid an adjustment factor is added to the asphalt.The factor is the based on the estimated difference in the rehabilitation costs of the two pavements from the PTS analysis.

38

ALTERNATE PAVEMENT BIDDINGALTERNATE PAVEMENT BIDDING

Bids have been received on three alternate Bids have been received on three alternate pavement bidding projects to date.

SR 80 Hendry County SR 80 Hendry County SR 79 Washington County SR 70 St Lucie County SR 70 St Lucie County

These have all been reconstruction type projects designed with Appendix Eprojects designed with Appendix E.

39

ALTERNATE PAVEMENT BIDDINGALTERNATE PAVEMENT BIDDING

The US 27 be let soon and is a resurfacing The US 27 be let soon and is a resurfacing contract where FDOT experimented with the 1.1 version of the software to design the white version of the software to design the white topping section.A second SR 70 job is also a reconstruction A second SR 70 job is also a reconstruction project with alternate bids which is scheduled to be let in May of this yearto be let in May of this year.

40

COMPARISON OF PAVEMENT SECTIONS FDOT P i FCPA O ti i d FDOT P t

Friction Course5 5” Asphalt

Asphalt DesignFDOT Previous Concrete Design

FCPA OptimizedConcrete

FDOT Present MEPDG Design

14.0” PCCJointed w/

10.0” PCCJointed w/

12.0” PCCJointed w/

12” Limerock 

5.5” Asphalt Jointed w/ Dowels

4” ATPBnon‐structural

Jointed w/ Dowels

1.5”  Asph. Structural Layer

Jointed w/ Dowels

4”  HMA – OBG 1

Base Course(LBR = 100)

12” Type – B

1” Asphalt Structural Layer

12” Type‐BStabilized 

12” Limerock Stabilized Base(LBR = 70)

12” Type‐BStabilized Subgrade (LBR=40)12  Type – B

StabilizedSubgrade(LBR=40)

Subgrade(LBR=40)

SubgradeSubgrade

(LBR 40)

Subgrade

SubgradeSubgrade

Appendix E

AASHTO ‘93

41

TYPICAL HIGH VOLUME PAVEMENT DESIGNS

FloridaAsphalt Concrete

5” Asphalt structural

¾” Asphalt frictioncourse

Asphalt Concrete

12” limerock

12” concrete

pcourse

5” ”12 limerock

base 4” Asphalt base

29

.75

28

”12” stabilization 12” stabilization

12,000 psi subgrade42

TYPICAL HIGH VOLUME PAVEMENT DESIGNS

Mi iMissouri

1” Asphalt friction

Asphalt Concrete

14” concrete8” Asphalt structuralcourse

1 Asphalt frictioncourse

14 concretecourse

24”

24”

4” drainage base

5” Asphalt base

4” drainage base

6” aggregate base 6” aggregatebase

4 drainage base 4 drainage base

7000 psi subgrade

43

TYPICAL HIGH VOLUME PAVEMENT DESIGNS

G iGeorgia

1 25” Asphalt friction

Asphalt Concrete

12” concrete13.75” Asphaltstructural course

1.25 Asphalt frictioncourse

structural course

27”

27”

3” Asphaltstructural

12” aggregate base 12” aggregatebase

course

4000 psi subgrade

44

TYPICAL HIGH VOLUME PAVEMENT DESIGNS

AlabamaAsphalt Concrete

13 5” concrete13” Asphalt structuralcourse

1” Asphalt frictioncourse

13.5 concretecourse

24”

23

.5”

4” drainage base 4” drainage base

6” aggregate base 6” aggregatebase

4 drainage base 4 drainage base

7000 psi subgrade

45

CONCRETE PAVING PROJECTSRECENTLY COMPLETED

I-95 Brevard County – six lane project I 95 Brevard County six lane project completed in August of 2009I 4 TampaI-4 TampaI-295 / I-95/SR9A JacksonvilleSR 9A/JTB JacksonvilleI 95 - Heckscher Drive to SR9A Jacksonville

46

CONCRETE PAVING PROJECTSUNDERWAY

I-10 / I-95 Jacksonville I 10 / I 95 Jacksonville I-10 – Lane to Stockton JacksonvilleI 4 E t i C t C t TI-4 Extension Crosstown Connector TampaSR 9B Jacksonville

47

CONCRETE PAVING PROJECTSIN DESIGN (2010-2015 WORK PROGRAM)

Eller Drive Ft LauderdaleEller Drive Ft LauderdaleCRCP – I-10 agricultural inspection station in D-2 and I 75 rest area in D 72 and I-75 rest area in D-7US 27 Palm Beach County – White Topping –Alt t P t BidAlternate Pavement Bid

48

CONCRETE PAVING PROJECTSIN DESIGN (2010-2015 WORK PROGRAM)

SR 112/ I 195 Miami-DadeSR 112/ I 195 Miami DadeUS 92 Volusia I 295 C lli /Bl di g i J k illI 295 Collins/Blanding in JacksonvilleTwo jobs on I 275 Hillsborough County

49

ADDITIONAL FUNDINGADDITIONAL FUNDING

The Executive Board has set a side funding to The Executive Board has set a side funding to assist in the deferential up front cost of a PCC as compared to the HMAas compared to the HMA$17 M AnnuallyTh f d itt d t 2011The funds are committed up to 2011

50

FACTS AND FIGURESFACTS AND FIGURES

Did you know?Did you know?Concrete pavements in Florida currently make up 2% of the State Highway Systemmake up 2% of the State Highway System, but carry 5% of the overall traffic. On the Interstate system they make up 8% of theInterstate system, they make up 8% of the system, but carry nearly 13% of the traffic.

51

FINAL NOTEFINAL NOTE

An adequate design combined with skillful An adequate design combined with skillful construction affords the best chance for a

long lasting pavement!long lasting pavement!

52

ThankThank you

54