Rasmussen and Rozycki

01-2948
Characterization and Modeling of Axial Slab-Support Restraint
Dr. Robert Otto Rasmussen, P.E., Vice President & Chief Engineer, Transtec, Inc., robotto@transtecinc.com 1012 East 38 St., Austin, Texas, 78751, USA, +1-512-451-6233, +1-512-451-6233 (Fax) Mr. Dan K. Rozycki, Vice President, Transtec, Inc., dkr@transtecinc.com

ABSTRACT Slab-support interaction has long been established as an important consideration in the design and construction of concrete pavements for streets, highways, and airfields. With the current interest in design features such as opengraded permeable bases, unbonded concrete overlays, and whitetopping pavements, the need for an accurate and standard means for characterizing this behavior is evident. With respect to conventional concrete pavements, previous studies have concluded that excessive restraint between the slab and the support layers of a pavement structure can lead to pavement distresses that are ultimately detrimental to the performance of the pavement. These studies have shown that undesirable restraint characteristics are typically caused by improper subbase design or construction. The consequences of underestimating or neglecting the support restraint characteristics have been shown to result in uncontrolled slab cracking, excessive joint movements, or underdesigned reinforcement. However, in some cases a high degree of slab-support restraint is desired, such as for whitetopping pavements, especially ultra-thin whitetopping (UTW). This paper presents recent developments in characterizing and modeling axial slab-support restraint characteristics of concrete pavements. It identifies test procedures that have been developed to accurately assess the level of axial slab-support restraint present. It also identifies future enhancements to characterization and modeling of this phenomenon.

Rasmussen and Rozycki BACKGROUND It is well understood that proper design of concrete pavements requires careful consideration of a wide variety of inputs. Beyond prudent traffic loading predictions, the design engineer must also consider the many influences of environmental loads on a pavement design. Both the diurnal cycle of ambient thermal influence, as well as changing moisture conditions, contribute to the cyclical rise and fall of stresses in a pavement. These effects are especially pronounced during the first 72 hours after construction, due to the dynamic nature of the hydration processes. Tools such as the FHWA HIPERPAV system have been able to demonstrate the importance of this phenomenon. (1) The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has also recognized the importance of including these measures into proper pavement design in its Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. (2)

Stresses in a concrete pavement result from the expansion and contraction of the pavement combined with the restraint characteristics caused by, among other features, the interaction of the support layers beneath the pavement. The level of restraint plays a key role in determining the performance of a concrete pavement. This paper discusses the need for accurate characterization of the axial support restraint when designing and constructing concrete pavements. This paper will examine both the theoretical and practical aspects of this problem. It should be noted that another important aspect of restraint in a concrete pavement is the restraint of the curling and warping action. However, due to the need for brevity, that topic will not be covered here. A complete analysis should consider stresses due to both axial as well as curling and warping restraint.

IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM A more accurate assessment of the true axial support restraint properties for a concrete pavement can provide several benefits. Improved support design will likely result in improved pavement performance, which results in lower life cycle costs of the pavement due to the lower maintenance demand. The increased use of open-graded permeable bases in the United States has awakened the industry to new types of problems that are beginning to surface. (3) Throughout the country, significant mid-slab cracking, joint faulting, and spalling are being observed on concrete pavements within the first 10 years of service, even though most of these pavements are designed to provide good performance for 30 years or longer. Although in most cases, good pavement drainage is paramount to a good performing concrete pavement, secondary issues such as excessive slab-support restraint are beginning to be recognized for their importance in the performance of these pavements.

Rasmussen and Rozycki As will be demonstrated here, accurately characterizing and modeling the axial slab-support restraint can

benefit the industry by providing the means to predict the potential for development of these type of problems before they occur. Designers and owners can use the information presented here not only to determine the optimum crosssectional design, but also to better design or specify their joint designs or reinforcement, if applicable.

SLAB-SUPPORT RESTRAINT PHENOMENON Oftentimes, the restraint between a slab and the support layer is thought of as being only due to shear, or friction in a classical sense, where the horizontal restraint force is equal to a percentage of the dead weight of the slab. However, as Figure 1 illustrates, there are two additional factors that contribute to the overall slab-support restraint: adhesion, and interlock. Adhesion is characterized by the vertical attraction between the pavement and support layers. This is often caused by chemical bonding between the layers. A weaving of the coarse texture of the slab and the support layer, which is common in open-graded bases such as permeable bases, causes interlock. The following sections will describe the causes of stress development in a concrete pavement as well as the failure criteria employed for this phenomenon.

Stress Development The expansion or contraction of the concrete slab causes horizontal movements. Temperature changes affect the concrete due to the coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete. Consequently, hardened concrete tends to develop a zero-stress memory near the point of final set. When the temperature increases above the temperature at which the concrete achieved its final set, the concrete tends to expand. Similarly, a decrease from the set temperature will cause the concrete to contract. Although the effects of temperature changes are very small, over large distances such as the length or width of a concrete slab the effects can become great enough to cause large stresses and cracking in a slab. Restraint at the interface between the slab and the support layers restricts some of the slabs shrinkage and temperature contraction effects and causes stresses to develop in the slab. If restraint were eliminated such as in the case of weightless concrete on a sheet of wet ice, the slab would be free to contract as much as needed to satisfy the contraction or expansion induced in the concrete. In the case when the slab is fully restrained from movement, stresses of very high magnitude are induced in the pavement. Conventional support layers provide an intermediate case, where some allowance is made for the concrete slabs to move and to relieve some of the stress. A good

Rasmussen and Rozycki

support system is stiff enough to withstand the traffic induced loads and stresses, but at the same time will not bond too much to the concrete slab above it. The amount of bond between the slab and the support greatly affects the amount of restraint at the interface. If the axial support restraint is excessive for a given pavement design, the restricted pavement movement can result in unwanted cracking. However, if the axial support restraint is too low for a given pavement design, the unrestricted pavement movement can result in the cracking of only every second, or even third, joint in the pavement, which can then lead to excessive joint opening and permit the infiltration of incompressibles and excessive water. It should be noted that one additional consideration on development on the stresses in concrete pavements is relaxation creep. As mentioned above, the reference temperature for which subsequent temperature changes are made is often taken as the temperature at final set. Relaxation creep can effectively change the final set temperature by relaxing stress development in the slab. In addition, highly viscoelastic support materials such as asphaltstabilized bases will have an inherent high creep component, which can further reduce stresses at the interface. Although the complexity of this topic precludes it from being thoroughly discussed in this paper, some consideration will be made in subsequent sections.

Slab-Support Interface Failure The movement at, or even failure of, the slab-support bond can actually occur at either the interface, or within the support layer itself. Figure 2 illustrates this concept. In this figure, it can be observed that the highest level of shear occurs at the slab-support interface, with a decrease in the shear stress with depth into the support material. Following the weak-link theory, the failure in the bonded system will occur when any one of the following two criteria is met:
interface > interface

(1)

or,
support > support

(2)

where, interface = shear stress at the slab-support interface (kPa), interface = shear strength of the slab-support interface (kPa),

Rasmussen and Rozycki support support = shear stress within the support layer (kPa), and = shear strength of the support layer material (kPa).

Note that the strength values given in Equations 1 and 2 depend on a number of factors. Factors such as the temperature, moisture, and stress state of the support layer and interface will influence the strength values. This is especially true for asphalt stabilized support materials, which are generally highly viscoelastic. For this reason, the failure due to axial slab-support restraint may vary for a given pavement structure depending in the time of day and season when the failure occurs.

FIELD MEASUREMENT AND TEST METHODS In this section, the methods of measuring the axial slab-support restraint will be described. A historical perspective will first be presented, followed by a description of the state-of-the-practice of the test procedure.

Previous Studies The first known published study on axial support restraint characteristics of rigid pavements was published by Goldbeck in ACI in 1917, followed by Public Roads in 1924. (4,5) This study investigated the restraint properties of concrete on various subbases by means of a standardized test. A second paper, published in 1934, applied the slab-support restraint phenomenon to pavement reinforcement design. (6) Since then, support designs have changed considerably. The widespread use of lime stabilization in the 1950s and 60s, as well as the increased use of asphalt materials, resulted in a significant need for further and more extensive testing of subbase restraint on rigid pavements. In the 1960s, a number of additional papers were written on this topic, reflecting some of these changes, and presenting current test procedures. (7,8,9,10) In 1977, Darter applied a simplified form of the concept of slab-support into a procedure for the design of zero-maintenance concrete pavements. (11) In this report, two values representing the impact of slab-support restraint were recommended: one for unstabilized bases, and one for stabilized bases. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) identified a need for further testing, which was addressed in 1986 and 1987 in several reports published by the Center for Transportation Research at the University of Texas at Austin. (12,13,14,15) These reports focused on rigid pavements for highway application and presented a standardized method of slab-support restraint that was then used on a number of subbase types to generate default

Rasmussen and Rozycki values. Finally, in 1986, provisions for slab-support restraint were added to the AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures for reinforcement design. (2)

Overview of Current Testing Procedure The test procedure employed to collect slab-support restraint data for concrete pavements is based on the procedure adopted for the TxDOT work. The procedure, most recently documented in 1987, became termed the push-off test because of the use of a hydraulic jack to push the concrete test slab off its original position on the subbase. (12) The procedures employed in the push-off test are given here followed by an example of a recent application of this test at the McCarran Las Vegas International Airport.

Construction of Test Specimens Proper construction of the test specimens is critical to accurately measuring the restraint characteristics present between the concrete and subbase layers. Proper construction of the concrete test slabs specify that they be of a thickness equal to that of the planned pavement, and be of large enough area to provide an adequate sample of interaction with the subbase. From experience, the most manageable test specimens are constructed as 1.2 by 2.4 m (4 by 8 ft) slabs. Proper construction also requires that the slabs be spaced far enough from each other so that no slab influences the testing of another slab. A 1.2 to 1.8m (4 to 6 ft) minimum spacing between slabs is recommended. It is important that the underlayers of the pavement section beneath the test slabs follow the specifications of the as-constructed pavement as closely as possible. The underlayers should also extend beyond the test slabs and all sides to provide a large enough pad so that the edges of the subbase pad do not influence the testing results of any slabs. A 0.9 m (3 ft) minimum clearance between the edge of the underlayment and the edge of a test slab is recommended. Finally, joints or other discontinuities in the subbase layers should be avoided so as to not influence the test results. The testing equipment required by the push-off test is minimal. Table 1 lists the required equipment based on a recommended push-off concrete specimen size of 1.2 by 2.4 m. If the test is to be conducted on a specimen of size other than this, the equations in the table can be used to modify the equipment specifications accordingly.

Rasmussen and Rozycki Test Setup The following steps should be employed in setting up the slab-support push-off test: 1. Epoxy the gauge plates to the concrete surface at the contact points of the dial gauges prior to test setup.

These plates serve as a level surface for the dial gauges. Since it can take several minutes for the epoxy to bond, completing this procedure prior to test setup will significantly reduce the total testing time. 2. Install the vertical steel rods in the proper locations as shown in Figure 3. Position the vertical bars at least 75 mm (3 in.) from the edge of the slab. Ensure that the bars are installed deep enough into the base material that they do not sway to wind or move easily. 3. Attach each of the two horizontal steel rods, using the C clamps or vice grips, to each pair of the taller vertical rods. 4. 5. 6. 7. Attach each of the dial gauges to the appropriate steel rods, as indicated in Figure 3. Set the steel W beam against the contact surface of the test slab. Set the load cell against the W beam. Set the hydraulic jack between the load cell and the reaction (bulldozer) using the spacers as required to create a tight fit. 8. Connect the load cell to the readout device.

Test Execution Once set up, execute the test procedure as follows: 1. 2. 3. Apply the jacking load in increments of 200 kg (0.5 kips). Record the dial gauge readings and exact load value after each increment. Calculate the force applied to the slab-base interface by using the following formula:
Restraint force (Pa or psi) = [Hydraulic jack load (N or lbs)] / [Slab length (m or in.) x Slab width (m or in.)]

(3)

4.

Continue loading the slab until a total movement of approximately 6 mm (0.25 in.) is reached, or until free sliding is evident from the force and displacement readings.

5.

After completion, plot the collected data as restraint force versus average displacement as in Figure 4.

Rasmussen and Rozycki Example of Test Results In 1996 and 1997, a total of nine slabs were tested using the slab-support push-off test procedure at the Las Vegas International Airport. Due to the variety of data collected at this location, the results of these tests are presented in here as an example of the proper test application. The first set of tests was conducted in December 1996. For this test, two slabs were cast directly on the existing hot-mix asphalt (HMA) bond-breaker layer located on a proposed taxiway that was under construction. The two test slabs (herein noted as the north and south slabs) were constructed using the same PCC that had been approved for the planned pavement. The thickness of both of the test slabs was 43.5 cm (17 in.). The north slab measured (on the average) 125 cm (48.75 in.) wide by 247 cm (96.5 in.) long, while the south slab measured

124 cm (48.5 in.) wide by 245 cm (95.5 in.) long. The long edges of the slabs were parallel and approximately 126 cm (49 in.) apart. The south slab was prepared by spraying a curing compound atop the HMA layer prior to the casting of the PCCP, while the north slab was cast directly atop the HMA layer without any surface preparation. The results from this set of tests are illustrated in Figure 5 (most vertical of these curves). The peak push-off stress along the slab-base interface can be observed from the data to be approximately 104 kPa (15 psi). Little difference in the measured restraint data is observed between the slab constructed with the curing compound surface preparation and the slab without it. The displacement at which sliding begins to occur can be observed to be approximately 0.15 mm (0.006 in.). Because of the unusually high subbase restraint characteristics found on this first test, a second set of tests was conducted in January 1997. This second set of slabs was tested using the same procedure. For this set of tests, six types of bond breaker materials were used (in addition to a slab constructed with no additional bond breaker - for a total of seven slabs). Each test slab was tested to determine the effect of the various bond breaker materials on the restraint characteristics between the PCCP slab and the underlying layer. The second set of tests was conducted using the same procedures as the first test set. The following is a summary of the seven slabs that were tested in the second set: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 32 mm (1 in.) max. aggregate HMA (existing underlayment design), 32 mm (1 in.) max. aggregate HMA overlaid with 3 mm (1/8 in.) sand, 32 mm (1 in.) max. aggregate HMA overlaid with 2 mm (1/16 in.) sand, 32 mm (1 in.) max. aggregate HMA overlaid with polyethylene sheet (4 mil), 32 mm (1 in.) max. aggregate HMA overlaid with sand/slurry seal,

Rasmussen and Rozycki 6. 7. 32 mm (1 in.) max. aggregate HMA overlaid with Petromat sheeting, and 12 mm (0.5 in.) max. aggregate HMA, 103 mm (4 in.) thickness

The first six of these slabs were constructed on the existing 32 mm (1 in.) HMA mix. The slabs were constructed so that one of the short sides (1.2 m side) laid parallel and adjacent to an open construction joint in the underlying HMA layer. It became apparent during the first test that the location of the HMA joint was influencing the results of the test in the current testing configuration. In order to eliminate this problem, it was decided that the slabs be loaded on the side opposite of the side adjacent to the joint. In addition, the vertical rods from which the dial gauges were affixed were driven into the HMA layer on the side of the joint opposite to the slab. The testing of the slab constructed atop the 12 mm (0.5 in.) HMA mix also demonstrated unusual behavior due to a crack that formed in the HMA layer along the bulldozer blade. This crack opened during the testing, which led to the introduction of error in the displacement readings. With the exception of these issues, the testing was successful. The results of the tests can be found in Figure 5 and Table 2.

MODELING AXIAL SLAB-SUPPORT RESTRAINT The following sections will expand on some of the theoretical aspects of the axial slab-support restraint phenomenon. The current analysis technique will first be presented, followed by and example of that method. Lastly, a description of ongoing developments to improve on this model and analysis technique will be given.

Current Axial Slab-Support Restraint Model A simple but accurate way to characterize the interaction between a slab and a subbase is via elastic mechanics. The model selected and described herein was originally developed for CRCP, but can be adapted for all types of concrete pavement. (16) The basis for the model is governed by the following differential equation:

b d 2u c 2 E A dx c c
where,

= 0

(4)

Rasmussen and Rozycki uc x b Ec Ac f = PCC axial displacement (m), = coordinate in direction of axial movement, = pavement width (m), = modulus of elasticity of PCC (kPa), = cross sectional area of pavement (sq. m), and = restraint stress (kPa) (see Figure 4).

10

The shape of the curve in Figure 4 is a function of the base type beneath the PCCP. Table 3 contains typical coefficients that define the shape of the restraint stress curve for various subbase types using this bilinear model. (1) As Equation 4 is used as the model for the general behavior of the concrete specimen, the restraint stress,

f, is modeled by the two part linear function given in Equations 5 and 6 below (refer to Figure 4 for variable
definitions).

f = K 3uc
uc f = C2 u c

if 0 < u c f

(5)

if

f uc

(6)

In solving for Equation 4, a number of techniques can be employed. The easiest of these is the use of a one-dimensional finite difference method. To employ this method, a theoretical slab is divided into a finite number of length increments. In practice, a half-slab can be used due to symmetry. For each increment, the following parameters are derived: axial displacement, and the first and second derivatives of this, friction force, and stress. Inputs to this model include: Slab Thickness (m), Slab Length (m), Temperature Change (C), Linear Coefficient of Thermal Expansion, CTE (m/m/C), Shrinkage (m/m), Movement at Maximum Friction, f from Equation 6 (m), Maximum Friction, C2 from Equation 6 (Pa).

Rasmussen and Rozycki Example of Application of Current Model In order to better understand the analysis technique employing the finite difference method, an example is given here for clarity. For this example, it is assumed that a concrete pavement design specifies a 0.33m (13 in.) slab at a 6.1m (20 ft.) joint spacing. The slab was constructed with a concrete with a CTE of 4.2 m/m/C (7.5 ft/ft/F) and a shrinkage at the time of analysis of 400 microstrains. The pavement is subjected to a 28C (50F) decrease in

11

temperature from the set temperature. The pavement rests on a support layer with a measured friction of 28 kPa (4.0 psi) with a movement of 0.38mm (0.015 in.) at sliding. Using the finite difference technique, the half-slab length is divided into 72 increments with a length of 42mm (1.67 in.) each. For the analysis, the following boundary conditions are employed: The axial stress at the free edge of the slab is zero, and The axial displacement at the center of the slab is zero. After solving for the slab stresses and displacements, the maximum stress is found to be 234 kPa (34 psi) at the center of the slab. The end movement of the half-slab was calculated to be 2.35mm (0.09 in.), which when doubled, results in a joint opening of 4.7mm (0.19 in.).

Future Model Enhancements The model presented in this paper is relatively straightforward. To date, this model has been used successfully on a number of projects due to its practical and robust nature. However, the number of inputs is limited, and the characterization of the system is both linear and elastic. In reality, pavements sometimes respond in a nonlinear fashion, and in many cases, deviate from elastic behavior. Due to these facts, more sophisticated analysis techniques are currently under development for future enhancement of the model. The enhancements are summarized as follows: 1. Consideration of the three-dimensional problem of pavement behavior. The current one-dimensional modeling technique has been found to work well for conventional pavement slab construction with length to width ratios of 1.5 of greater. (1) However, new types of concrete pavements such as ultra-thin whitetopping (UTW) may require a three-dimensional solution due to the greater significance of the boundary conditions as a result of their small slab geometries.

Rasmussen and Rozycki 2. Incorporation of curling and warping behavior into the axial restraint model, resulting in a unified slab behavior model. Curling and warping stresses in concrete pavements can often be more significant than axial stresses. (1) As mentioned previously, this affect must be considered in a complete slab behavior

12

analysis. Currently, one method of doing this is to combine the stresses calculated assuming the principle of superposition. However, edge and corner lift-off conditions can occur in a curled slab. Since the current slab-support model assumes a flat slab, this effect would change the inputs to the current model. Therefore, a coupled model is under development that would be an advancement to modeling this behavior. 3. Non-linear characterization of the slab-support behavior. Figure 4 and Equations 5 and 6 demonstrate a bilinear model for slab-support restraint behavior. However, a number of support types, including asphaltstabilized materials, clearly demonstrate non-linear response behavior. A model is currently under development that can capture these non-linear effects. 4. Viscoelastic characterization of the slab-support restraint behavior. Many materials exhibit a viscoelastic response under load. A model to mechanistically characterize both the support layer and slab-support bond behavior is currently under development. The model will include provisions for the temperature susceptibility of the materials as well as the rate of loading. It is evident that the loading rate of the pushoff test is different than the rate of loading due to the diurnal or seasonal cycle. Stress relaxation will occur in many cases, making the current solution higher than expected in the field. Therefore, the need for an improved model to consider this effect is evident. 5. Fatigue characterization. Fatigue of the slab-support bond as well as the support material itself in the vicinity of the bond should be taken into consideration. This is believed to be especially critical for the bond between the concrete and asphalt in a UTW pavement, where wheel load stresses will also contribute to the deterioration of the bond. A model is currently under development that will consider this effect.

CONCLUSIONS This paper has served to reintroduce the importance of accurately characterizing and modeling axial slab-support restraint behavior. A standardized testing procedure, termed the push-off test, has shown to be an excellent method of determining the slab-support restraint characteristics of concrete pavements. The differences in the measured frictional values for the same type of subbase can be significant as was shown in the example from the Las Vegas airfield pavements. In this example, in-situ frictional values from the asphalt stabilized subbase were approximately

Rasmussen and Rozycki

13

5 times greater than what the design was typically be based upon. (2) This difference translated into a substantially greater probability of uncontrolled cracking in the slabs. However, because this difference was discovered prior to the PCC paving, a recommendation was made which specified that a very thin sand layer be placed atop the subbase prior to paving to reduce the frictional restraint. The push-off test is a relatively inexpensive test to perform. With reusable testing equipment, minimal labor, and short execution time, the test is typically an affordable preventative measure that can save the significant cost of failed pavements. Characterizing the slab-support restraint by measuring it in the field cannot be overstated. Since many variables are beyond the scope of most typical subbase designs, only in-situ testing can measure the properties to determine their ultimate impact. These variables may include differences in surface texture, chemical composition, adhesion properties, and possibly temperature and moisture. The modeling of the slab behavior as a function of the slab-support characterization was also presented here. A straightforward method of slab stress and joint movement prediction was given. Employing a onedimensional finite difference method, this technique can easily be programmed into a small computer program or spreadsheet template. Finally, limitations of the current state-of-the-practice were enumerated with a description of work currently underway to overcome most of these factors. The majority of the proposed improvements include means to better characterize the real behavior of the paving materials, namely their nonlinear viscoelastic nature. Application of the techniques given in this paper are numerous. The desired nature of slab-support behavior is a function of the type of concrete pavement. Whitetopping pavements, especially UTW, require that a strong bond be developed between the concrete slab and the underlying asphalt concrete, resulting in a composite structure. However, conventional concrete pavements, and especially unbonded concrete overlays, require as little of a bond as possible in order to ensure high performance. One specific application of the procedures given herein include the means to develop a tool to develop or verify specifications for the following pavement design and construction features: Base Type, Bond Breaker Selection, Coarse Aggregate Type, Mix Design, Time of Day of Construction,

Rasmussen and Rozycki Season (or date) of Construction, and Maximum Concrete Temperature.

14

In summary, the proper characterization and modeling of axial slab-support restraint is an important feature of a concrete pavement design or analysis. The methods and procedures given here provide a summary of the background and the state-of-the practice of this effect.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to extend their appreciation and gratitude to the Bechtel Group and the Clark County Department of Aviation for their assistance and sponsorship of the tests conducted at McCarran International Airport. The authors would also like to thank the Federal Highway Administration, sponsors of the HIPERPAV program, in which this model is currently integrated. Finally, the authors would like to thank the Innovative Pavement Research Foundation (IPRF) for their support in the development of a systems analysis tool for concrete pavement specifications development, in which this modeling procedure is also included.

REFERENCES
(1)

McCullough, B.F. and Rasmussen, Robert Otto. Fast-Track Paving: Concrete Temperature Control and Traffic Opening Criteria for Bonded Concrete Overlays Volume I: Final Report. Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-RD-98-167, Washington, D.C., 1999.

(2)

AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1986.

(3)

Khazanovich, L., et. al. Common Characteristics of Good and Poorly Performing PCC Pavements. Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-RD-97-131, Washington, D.C., 1998.

(4)

Goldbeck, A.T. Friction Tests for Concrete on Various Subbases. American Concrete Institute Proceedings, Vol. 8, 1917.

(5)

Goldbeck, A.T. Friction Tests of Concrete on Various Subbases. Public Roads, Vol. 5 No. 5, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., July 1924.

(6)

Friberg, B.F. Frictional Resistance under Concrete Pavements and Restraint Stresses in Long Reinforced Slabs. In Highway Research Board Proceedings, Vol. 33, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1934, pp. 167-184.

Rasmussen and Rozycki

(7)

15

Scott, J.P. Tests on Materials for Use in Sliding Layers under Concrete Road Slabs Part 1. Civil Engineering, Vol. 56, No. 663, October 1961, pp. 1297-1301.

(8)

Scott, J.P. Tests on Materials for Use in Sliding Layers under Concrete Road Slabs Part 2. Civil Engineering, Vol. 56, No. 664, November 1961, pp. 1466-1468.

(9)

Scott, J.P. Tests on Materials for Use in Sliding Layers under Concrete Road Slabs Part 3. Civil Engineering, Vol. 56, No. 665, December 1961, pp. 1603-1605.

(10)

Timms, A.G. Evaluating Subgrade Friction-Reducing Mediums for Rigid Pavements. In Highway Research Record 60, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1963, pp. 28-38.

(11)

Darter, Michael I. Design of Zero-Maintenance Plain Jointed Concrete Pavement, Vol. I Development of Design Procedures. Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-RD-77-111, Washington, D.C., 1977.

(12)

Wesevich, J.W., McCullough, B.F., and Burns, N.H. Stabilized Subbase Friction Study for Concrete Pavements. Research Report 459-1, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, April 1987.

(13)

Wimsatt, Andrew W., McCullough, B. Frank, and Burns, Ned H. Methods of Analyzing and Factors Influencing Frictional Effects of Subbases. Research Report 459-2F, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, November 1987.

(14)

Mendoza-Diaz, Alberto, McCullough, B. Frank, and Burns, Ned H. Behavior of Long Prestressed Pavement Slabs and Design Methodology. Research Report 401-3, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, November 1986.

(15)

Chia, Way Seng, McCullough, B. Frank, and Burns, Ned H. Field Evaluation of Subbase Friction Characteristics. Research Report 401-5, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, November 1986.

(16)

Xin, Dapeng, Zollinger, Dan G., and James, Ray W. One-Dimensional Model for Analysis of CRC Pavement Growth. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 18, Number 4, July/August 1992, pp. 557-575.

Rasmussen and Rozycki LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Components of axial slab-support restraint. FIGURE 2 Typical stress distributions at slab-support interface. FIGURE 3 Typical layout of push-off test. FIGURE 4 Typical slab-support restraint data and model. FIGURE 5 Plots of push-off test data from example slabs.

16

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Push-Off Test Equipment List TABLE 2 Summary of Restraint Characteristics from Example Slabs TABLE 3 Typical Restraint Values for Various Subbase Types

Rasmussen and Rozycki

17

Shear (Friction)

Interlock

Adhesion

Sla b Ba se Sup p o rt
FIGURE 1 Components of axial slab-support restraint.

Stresses d ue to Shrinka g e, Tem p .C ha ng e

Sla b Sla b Sup p o rt

Sup p o rt

interface base

FIGURE 2 Typical stress distributions at slab-support interface.

Rasmussen and Rozycki

Bulldozer blade (or other reaction device) Spacers Steel Beam Load Cell Hydraulic Jack Dial Gages

18

2.4m

0.3m

FIGURE 3 Typical layout of push-off test.

f
Restra int Stre ss (kPa )

Test Da ta
C2 1 K3

f = C2

f = K3uc
f

1.2m

uc
Disp la c em ent (m m )

FIGURE 4 Typical slab-support restraint data and model.

Rasmussen and Rozycki

19

120 North Sla b(No C uringC om p ound ) South Sla b(With C uringC om p ound ) 3m mSa nd 2m mSa nd PolyethyleneSheeting Petrom a t Slurry Sea l

100

80 Load (kP

60

40

20

0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Disp la c em ent (m m ) 3.0 3.5 4.0

FIGURE 5 Plots of push-off test data from example slabs.

TABLE 1 Push-Off Test Equipment List Quantity 2 4 4 1 1 Item Rebar (vertical use), size #6 or larger Dial gauges (w/clamps) to 0.0025 mm (0.0001 in.) tolerance Gauge plates of sheet metal or flashing Load cell and readout device Hydraulic jack, capable of horizontal operation Specs or Equations 0.9 m (3 feet)

150 mm x 150 mm (6 in x 6 in) square 4.5 metric tons or capacity(tons) = [W(cm) x L(cm)]/930 (50 ton capacity or capacity(tons) = [W(in.) x L(in.)]/150) W8x35, 0.6 m (2 ft) length

1 1 1

Tube of epoxy for gauge plates Reaction beam, steel W beam Reaction (bulldozer blade) General tools (hammer) Steel spacers

Approx. 15 cm (6 in) square, 25 mm 50 mm (1/2 in 1 in) thick

Rasmussen and Rozycki TABLE 2 Summary of Restraint Characteristics from Example Slabs Base Type Untreated 32mm (1.25 in.) HMA **1 Untreated 32mm (1.25 in.) HMA **2 32mm (1.25 in.) HMA with Curing Compound **1 32mm (1.25 in.) HMA with 2 mm (1/16 in.) Sand **2 32mm (1.25 in.) HMA with 3 mm (1/8 in.) Sand **2 32mm (1.25 in.) HMA with Polyethylene Sheeting **2 32mm (1.25 in.) HMA with Slurry Seal **2 32mm (1.25 in.) HMA with Petromat **2 12 mm (0.5 in.) HMA **2
Notes:
**1

20

Maximum Restraint Load, kPa (psi) 111 (16) > 97 (14) **3 104 (15) 41 (6) 35 (5) 7 (1) 83 (12) 41 (6) > 90 (13) **3

Maximum Movement at Sliding, mm (in.) 0.2 (0.006)

**3

0.2 (0.006) 1.3 (0.05) 0.5 (0.02) 2.1 (0.08) 2.1 (0.08) 0.8 (0.03)
**3

Tested Dec 96

**2

Tested Jan 97

**3

Displacement Readings Unreliable - only Max. Loads provided

TABLE 3 Typical Restraint Values for Various Subbase Types (1) Subbase Type C2 in kPa (psi) (max. restraint) 69 (10.0) 35 (5.0) 103 (15.0) 41 (6.0) 103 (15.0) 10 (1.5) 6.9 (1.0) 14 (2.0) f in mm (in.) (displ. @ sliding) 0.25 (0.01) 0.51 (0.02) 0.51 (0.02) 0.64 (0.025) 0.025 (0.001) 0.76 (0.03) 1.0 (0.04) 0.51 (0.02) K3 in kPa/mm (psi/in.) (restraint slope) 270 (1000) 68 (250) 200 (750) 65 (240) 4100 (15000) 14 (50) 6.8 (25) 27 (100)

Dense-Graded HMA (Rough) Dense-Graded HMA (Smooth) Asphalt Stabilized (Rough) Asphalt Stabilized (Smooth) Cement Stabilized Lime Treated Clay Natural Clay Granular