Use of Polyurethane Grout for Concrete Pavement Slab Stabilization
52
www.dot.state.pa.us USE OF POLYURETHANE GROUT FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT SLAB STABILIZATION Indiana County District 10- 0 Lessons Learned 1
description
Lessons Learned. Indiana County. Use of Polyurethane Grout for Concrete Pavement Slab Stabilization. District 10-0. SR 422 Sec. 6 Indiana By Pass Slab Stabilization Project. Existing Pavement Conditions. Original construction 1995 4 lane Limited Access Highway - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Use of Polyurethane Grout for Concrete Pavement Slab Stabilization
www.dot.state.pa.us
USE OF POLYURETHANE GROUT FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT SLAB STABILIZATION
Indiana County
District 10-0
Lessons Learned
1
www.dot.state.pa.us
SR 422 Sec. 6 Indiana By Pass Slab Stabilization Project
2
www.dot.state.pa.us
Existing Pavement Conditions
– Original construction 1995– 4 lane Limited Access Highway– Two 12 ft lanes each direction– Project length ~3miles– 12 lane miles treated– Shoulders 4 ft left, 10 ft right– 20 ft joint spacing
3
www.dot.state.pa.us
Existing Pavement Conditions cont.
– Pavement section• 10 inch unreinforced PCCP
– Subbase• 4 inch OGS• 4 inch 2A
– Joints are in good condition – Main Problems –
• Mid Bay Slab Cracks• Slab settlement• Rocking• Some pavement distress
4
www.dot.state.pa.us
SR 422 Sec. 6 Mid-bay Crack Project
• Project traffic and Length
Direction ADT LengthEastbound 4841 3.07 milesWestbound 4920 3.06 miles
7% Trucks Total 12 lane miles
5
www.dot.state.pa.us
Slab Stabilization Scope of Work
– Slab Stabilization using Polyurethane Grout
– Slab Stabilization using Cement Grout(Comparison Section)
– Concrete Pavement Patching full depth– Dowel Bar Retro Fit Repairs– Crack Cleaning and Sealing– Joint Cleaning and Sealing
6
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project Overview
7
www.dot.state.pa.us
The existing joints are in Good Condition
8
www.dot.state.pa.us
Some Joint Distress but not extensive
9
www.dot.state.pa.us
Mid-Bay Cracks
10
www.dot.state.pa.us
Mid-Bay Cracks
11
www.dot.state.pa.us
Mid-bay slab cracking
10 in PCCP
4” OGS
4” 2A
Subgrade (Stiff to Hard Gravelly Silty Clay)
20 ft Joint Spacing
Mid-bay Crack
12
www.dot.state.pa.us
Slab Curling
10 in PCCP
4” OGS
4” 2A
Subgrade (Stiff to Hard Gravelly Silty Clay)
20 ft Joint Spacing
Mid-bay Crack
13
www.dot.state.pa.us
OGS Degradation
10 in PCCP
4” OGS
4” 2A
Subgrade (Stiff to Hard Gravelly Silty Clay)
20 ft Joint Spacing
Mid-bay Crack
14
www.dot.state.pa.us
Dowel Bar Retrofit - Grout Stabilization
10 in PCCP
4” OGS
4” 2A
Subgrade (Stiff to Hard Gravelly Silty Clay)
20 ft Joint Spacing
Mid-bay Crack
15
www.dot.state.pa.us
Comparison of distress between Travel Lanes and Passing Lanes
Travel Lanes Passing Lanes
Eastbound Westbound Total Eastbound Westbound Total
DBR* 55 100 155 8 10 18
Full Depth Patchs
48 231 279 3 14 17
Total 103 331 434 11 24 35
Quantities as originally designed
*DBR Dowel Bar Retrofits 16
www.dot.state.pa.us
Grout Hole Spacing
20 ft 20 ft
12 ft
12 ft
Traffic
3ft
6ft6ft
17
www.dot.state.pa.us
Drilling Grout Holes
18
www.dot.state.pa.us19
www.dot.state.pa.us20
www.dot.state.pa.us21
www.dot.state.pa.us22
www.dot.state.pa.us23
www.dot.state.pa.us
Mix Ratio
Resin Part Density Pounds/ US Gallon
A Isocyanate FE 800 A-D 10.16B Elastopor FE 663.01 8.95
Mix Ratio 50/50 by volumeB/A=8.95/10.16 = 0.88 by density
24
www.dot.state.pa.us25
www.dot.state.pa.us26
www.dot.state.pa.us27
www.dot.state.pa.us28
www.dot.state.pa.us29
www.dot.state.pa.us30
www.dot.state.pa.us31
www.dot.state.pa.us32
www.dot.state.pa.us33
www.dot.state.pa.us34
www.dot.state.pa.us
Grout Application Rate Per Lineal Foot Of 12ft wide Pavement Slab
Pounds per Lineal Foot
Dollars per Lineal Foot
Lowest 9.5 lb/Lf $40.85Highest 15.0 lb/Lf* $64.50Average 13.0 lb/Lf $55.90
*Highest application rate occurred in areas where slab was raised ½ to 1 inch.
Unit Bid Price of Material is $4.30/pound
35
www.dot.state.pa.us
Grout Application Rate Per Hole
Pounds Per Hole Dollars Per HoleLowest 16 lb/Hole $68.80/HoleHighest 35 lb/Hole $150.50/HoleAverage 23 lb/Hole $98.90/Hole
Unit Bid Price of Material is $4.30/pound
36
www.dot.state.pa.us
Application Rate Per Day With 4 Trucks
Pounds Per Day Dollars Per DayGood Day 34,000 $146,000Bad Day* 11,000 $47,300Average 23,000 $98,900
* Equipment break down and or low air temperatures
37
www.dot.state.pa.us
Total Polyurethane Grout Cost
• Original Estimated Quantity380,000 pounds $1.63M
• Actual Quantity627,700 pounds $2.67M
38
www.dot.state.pa.us
Iowa State Mobile Lab
39
www.dot.state.pa.us
Iowa State Mobile Lab
40
www.dot.state.pa.us
Iowa State University- an overview of testing and some very preliminary results
• Tests were done before and after injection at both pavement joints and at mid bay cracks
• Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing measured both modulus and deflection giving joint efficiency
• Various subgrade density and modulus testing devices were used
• Load transfer efficiency• Pavement Elevation profile• Insitu densities• Subbase gradation• Subgrade Temperature probe
41
www.dot.state.pa.us
SR-422 WB
Shoulder
Traffic Lane
Passing Lane
Shoulder
ABCD
Elevation Profiles
Easting (m)
650100 650110 650120 650130
Nor
thin
g (m
)
4497980
4497985
4497990
4497995
4498000
4498005
4498010
4498015
4498020
4498025FWD Before and After StabilizationFoam Injection LocationsCracksFWD After Stabilization
SR-422 WB
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Def
lect
ion,
D0 (
mm
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 Sur
face
Mod
ulus
, EFW
D-K
3 (M
Pa)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Def
lect
ion,
D0 (
mm
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 Sur
face
Mod
ulus
, EFW
D-K
3 (M
Pa)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
D0 Pre-StabilizationD0 Post-StabilizationEFWD Pre-StabilizationEFWD Post-Stabilization
Applied Load (Average) = 37.2 kN
Applied Load (Average) = 56.1 kN
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Def
lect
ion,
D0 (
mm
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 Sur
face
Mod
ulus
, EFW
D-K
3 (M
Pa)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Applied Load (Average) = 75.3 kN
Distance (m)
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Def
lect
ion,
D0 (
mm
)0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 Sur
face
Mod
ulus
, EFW
D-K
3 (M
Pa)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Applied Load (Average) = 106.5 kN
JointCrack
42
www.dot.state.pa.us
Example of Data presentation
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450
20
40
60
80
100
Pre-StabilizationPost-Stabilization
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Load
Tra
nsfe
r Effe
cien
cy, L
TE (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pre-StabilizationPost-Stabilization
Applied Load (Average) = 56.3 kN
Joint
Crack
Applied Load (Average) = 37.4 kN
Joint
Crack
Distance (m)
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450
20
40
60
80
100
Pre-StabilizationPost-Stabilization
Applied Load (Average) = 106.2 kN
Joint
Crack
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450
20
40
60
80
100
Pre-StabilizationPost-Stabilization
Applied Load (Average) = 75.6 kN
Joint
Crack
PennDOT SpecificationTarget LTE = 65%
PennDOT SpecificationTarget LTE = 65%
PennDOT SpecificationTarget LTE = 65%
PennDOT SpecificationTarget LTE = 65%
43
www.dot.state.pa.us
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450
20
40
60
80
100
Pre-StabilizationPost-Stabilization
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Load
Tra
nsfe
r Effe
cien
cy, L
TE (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pre-StabilizationPost-Stabilization
Applied Load (Average) = 56.3 kN
Joint
Crack
Applied Load (Average) = 37.4 kN
Joint
Crack
Distance (m)
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450
20
40
60
80
100
Pre-StabilizationPost-Stabilization
Applied Load (Average) = 106.2 kN
Joint
Crack
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450
20
40
60
80
100
Pre-StabilizationPost-Stabilization
Applied Load (Average) = 75.6 kN
Joint
Crack
PennDOT SpecificationTarget LTE = 65%
PennDOT SpecificationTarget LTE = 65%
PennDOT SpecificationTarget LTE = 65%
PennDOT SpecificationTarget LTE = 65%
44
www.dot.state.pa.us
Some key findings are as follows:
• Load transfer efficiency for the joints is about 79% before and after stabilization
• Load transfer efficiency for the mid-panel cracks is about 43% before stabilization and 88% after stabilization
• Corner slab deflections post-stabilization are less than 0.5 mm
45
www.dot.state.pa.us
Slab elevation changes
• There was an elevation change of about 0.25in. on average in test section 6
• There was an elevation change of about 0.8in on average in test section 7. This section also took twice as much material
46
www.dot.state.pa.us
Comparison with Portland Cement Grout
• The polyurethane performance will be compared to a 1,300 foot (~67 slabs) test section which will be grouted using portland cement grout during the construction season of 2010.
47
www.dot.state.pa.us
Summary and observations
• The OGS showed signs of particle degradation allowing for some slab rocking
• The 2A appeared to be stable
• The subgrade was stiff to hard
• The mid-bay cracks appear to be due to slab curling.
• The polyurethane grout is effective in stabilizing slab movements
48
www.dot.state.pa.us
Summary and Observations Cont.
• The Grout was effective at penetrating the clean OGS layer but it did not penetrate the 2A layer
• The grout is effective at lifting the slabs but it appeared difficult to accurately control the movement
• The grout coated the bottom of the slab with ¼ to 1 inch thick layer
• The grout did not block the drainage system
49
www.dot.state.pa.us
Based on the observations and information collected the following contract changes have been made
• We increased the polyurethane quantity to include total grouting of the passing lane
• We reduced the quantity of full depth patches and increased the quantity of DBRs. – The DBRs cost about ½ the amount of a patch and
reduces the number of pavement joints.
• We are considering the elimination of the diamond grinding
50
www.dot.state.pa.us
Based on the observations and information collected the following contract changes have been made
• The District has modified the special provision base on information from this project. Major changes include adding more quality control procedures
• Iowa State will monitor the grout performance over next three years
51
www.dot.state.pa.us
Use of Polyurethane Grout for Concrete Pavement Slab Stabilization
• Thank You
• Questions?
52
