Ảnh hưởng của các thay đổi ma sát cục bộ trong giao diện lớp đến việc hình thành vết nứt y trong CRCP

Effect of Localized Friction Changes in the Layer Interface on Formation of Y-Cracks in CRCPs A.F Momeni1, K A Riding2, D Peric3 Department of Civil Engineering, Kansas State University, 0073 Fiedler Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506; PH (785) 317-3237; FAX (785) 532-7717; email: momeni@k-state.edu Department of Civil Engineering, Kansas State University, 2107 Fiedler Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506; PH (785) 532-1578; FAX (785) 532-7717; email: riding@k-state.edu Department of Civil Engineering, Kansas State University, 2111 Fiedler Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506; PH (785) 532-2468; FAX (785) 532-7717; email: peric@k-state.edu ABSTRACT When transverse cracks meander there is a high possibility for transverse cracks to meet at a point and connect to another transverse crack, creating a Y-crack Y-cracks have been blamed for being the origin of punchouts and spallings in Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements (CRCP) When the direction of maximum principal stress changes, it could cause a change in the crack direction, potentially forming a Y-crack In this study, finite element model of CRCP using typical Oklahoma CRCP pavement conditions and design was assembled The model included the concrete pavement, asphalt concrete subbase, and soil subgrade A localized change in friction between the concrete and supporting layers was modeled to determine how subbase construction uniformity could affect y-cracking The effect of areas of changed friction on the direction of principal stress was simulated by considering a patch at the pavement-subbase interaction Investigated factors related to this patch were friction coefficient between patch and subbase and patch size A change in the friction had a large effect on the stress magnitude and direction of principal stress, leading to Y-cracks INTRODUCTION A Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) is a portland cement concrete pavement made with embedded reinforcement and without joints CRCPs were first built for experimental purposes in 1921 on the Columbia pike near Arlington, Virginia CRCPs later became more popular and other states around the U.S started to construct sections of their pavements with CRCPs (Choi & Roger, 2005) CRCP allows concrete to crack in order to relieve the stress from restrained moisture and temperature changes Having small width transverse cracks at regular intervals along the length of CRCP is very normal and does not cause low serviceability or rough ride However, wider transverse cracks are an issue and should be avoided The problem with wider cracks is that they let incompressible material and water enter the pavement structure and cause spalling and pumping of subbase materials Longitudinal reinforcements are used in CRCPs to keep the cracks tight and control crack spacing in transverse cracks Y-cracks are a common type of crack in CRCPs that can lead to punchouts and spallings (Momeni, 2013) Punchouts are a type of permanent distress usually created close to the edge of the concrete pavements resulting from continuous traffic load (Kohler & Roesler, 2004) Punchouts in CRCPs are usually defined as a block of CRCP surrounded by two closely-spaced transverse cracks, a short longitudinal crack, and the edge of pavement Closely-spaced transverse cracks become wider due to climate, concrete shrinkage, and lack of aggregate interlock Transverse flexural stresses developed by traffic load and curling and warping of the pavement slab can cause a longitudinal crack usually 0.6 to 1.5 m from the edge of pavement These transverse and longitudinal cracks may ultimately cause a punchout Space between cracks, pavement depth, weak foundation support and high traffic loading are influential factors for punchout distress (Shiraz, Stephanos, Gagnon, & Zollinger, 1998) Punchout distress has been considered the most serious performance problem for CRCPs and they can even cause corrosion of the concrete/steel interface at the crack (Kohler & Roesler, 2006) Another type of distress associated with CRCPs is spalling Spalling is generally the breakup of concrete at the surface of pavement along cracks and joints causing reduced cross section and weak load transfer (ERES Consultants, Inc., 2001) Break ups of concrete on one side or both sides of a crack in CRCP are considered spalling Categorization of spalls is mostly based on their depth into the pavement; a spall is assumed deep when its depth is larger than 2.5 cm (1 in.) Experiments done in the past indicated that spalling is related to crack width Spalling increases as cracks widen Structural flaws are generally the reason for deeper spalls, while weak horizontal planes in the surface of a slab are the reason for shallow and wide area spalls Spalling makes the pavement appearance unpleasant which can cause drivers to think negatively about the pavement Pavement roughness increases with an increase in spalling This causes lower ride quality and smoothness in the pavement (Zollinger, 1994) OBJECTIVE In this project, the Abaqus CAE software package was used to model pavement structures in Oklahoma Several models were run to understand the effects of pavement design, materials, and construction parameters on Y-cracking As mentioned before, Y-cracking happens when transverse cracks meander and meet each other at a point The direction of cracking usually occurs perpendicular to direction of maximum principal stress A change in direction of principal stress shows a change in direction of cracking, potentially Y-cracking Finite Element Models (FEMs) were used to understand the change in principal stress direction when there is a changed friction area in the pavement (patch) FINITE ELEMENT MODELING The computational model of a pavement was assembled including concrete, subbase, and subgrade Models were assembled with patches of differing subbase friction The finite element software package used consists of several modules, which enable the complete formulation of the computational model including pavement geometry and mechanical properties The analysis module performs the finite element calculations and creates an output data base (odb) file The output data base file is then used to access the results and determine changes in the stress distribution and principal stress directions A FEM was built for CRCP pavement structures in Oklahoma The pavement geometry and layer properties were based on typical values of Oklahoma CRCP Pavement layers were 3Dimensional, linear elastic layers The pavement consisted of three layers: 144 in (3.65 m) wide, 10 in (25 cm) thick concrete pavement (surface layer); a 216 in (5.50 m) wide, in (10 cm) thick asphalt concrete (AC) subbase layer; and a 288 in (7.30 m) wide, 36 in (90 cm) thick soil subgrade layer Figure shows the computational model used in the analysis for one lane Figure Pavement model created by Abaqus/CAE software package (Courtesy: Amir Farid Momeni) Mechanical and thermal parameters defined for each material were: young’s modulus (E), Poisson’s Ratio (ν), coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), mass density and thermal conductivity Table summarizes the layer geometry, mechanical and thermal parameters for each material used in the finite element model Values used for mechanical parameters were obtained through tests done in civil engineering laboratories at Kansas State University However, typical values of thermal parameters obtained from reports, were used to define these materials in modeling Table Pavement layers geometry, mechanical and thermal properties Inputs Pavement(Concrete) Subbase(AC) Subgrade(Soil) Young’s Modulus E, psi [Mpa] 3122019 [21252.5] 435000 [3000] 4000 [27.5] Poisson’s Ratio 𝝂 0.17 0.4 0.3 6.00E-06 [1.00E-05] 0.0026 [2323] 0.0616 [8.88E-05] 600 [15.25] 144 [3.65] 10 [0.25] 1.38E-05 [2.50E-05] 0.0027 [2412] 0.0361 [5.21E-05] 600 [15.25] 216 [5.50] [0.10] 5.00E-06 [9.00E-06] 0.0019 [1697] 0.0385 [5.55E-05] 600 [15.25] 288 [7.30] 36 [0.90] Coefficient of Expansion CTE, 1/F° [1/C°] Mass Density,slug/in3 [Kg/m3] Thermal Conductivity, Btu/in.hr.F° [W/(cm C°)] Length, inch [m] Width, inch [m] Thickness, inch [m] Two interactions were created for these three layers in the model A surface to surface contact with friction coefficient of 20 was defined for the interaction between pavement layer and subbase layer Another interaction was defined using the same procedure with a friction coefficient of 20 for the interaction between the subbase and subgrade layers Figure shows the location of the interactions between the pavement and subbase Figure shows the location of the friction interactions between the subbase and subgrade Since materials and interactions were similar to those used by (Timm, Guzina, & Voller, January 2003), friction coefficient values were obtained from models in that paper Figure Friction interaction location between pavement and subbase (Courtesy: Amir Farid Momeni) Figure Friction interaction location between subbase and subgrade (Courtesy: Amir Farid Momeni) The bottom of the subgrade was fixed against displacement and rotation in all directions and as shown in Figure Subgrade sides were restrained against displacement in the transverse and longitudinal directions as shown in Figures and Figure Boundary conditions at the bottom of the subgrade (Courtesy: Amir Farid Momeni) Figure Boundary conditions on the subgrade longitudinal direction sides (Courtesy: Amir Farid Momeni) Figure Boundary conditions on the subgrade transverse direction sides (Courtesy: Amir Farid Momeni) The gravity load was applied uniformly to the whole model The gravity load with a vertical acceleration component of 386 in/s2 (9.804 m/s2) was applied downward to the whole model as shown in Figure It is essential to apply the gravity load to ensure that the friction between layers is engaged A temperature decrease of 50° F (10° C) was applied to concrete pavement while the temperature underneath the pavement was kept constant This temperature loading was used to simulate the effects of drying shrinkage and temperature change seen by the pavement and not by the subbase and subgrade Several models with different temperature reductions were run to have an understanding about sensitivity of temperature reduction on builtup stresses and for combination of effects of thermal loading, drying and autogenous shrinkage, 50° F (10° C) temperature reduction showed reasonable results The primary purpose of this modeling is to determine the stress distribution patterns This will show if there are locations that are prone to higher densities of cracks or cracks with a tendency to change direction for crack branching Figure Gravity load applied uniformly to the pavement and substructure (Courtesy: Amir Farid Momeni) Coupled Temperature-Displacement elements were used in this finite element model A in (15.24 cm) seed size was used for the automatic meshing using node cubic elements Figure shows the finite element mesh used for the mainline pavement section This mesh was used for all three layers in model The number of elements used for the pavement (surface layer), subbase, and subgrade were 4,800, 3,600 and 28,800 respectively Figure Mainline pavement lane model mesh (Courtesy: Amir Farid Momeni) Load was applied in two steps: 1) gravity load, 2) thermal load in the presence of gravity EFFECT OF LOCALIZED CHANGES IN THE LAYER INTERFACE A localized change in friction between the concrete and supporting layers was modeled to determine how subbase construction uniformity could affect y-cracking The impact of these patch properties on the maximum principal stress direction was studied by varying the patch size, and friction coefficient (FC) of interaction between patch and the underlying layer Models were run to understand the effect of patch size and friction coefficient (FC) on how the direction of maximum principal stresses varies across the width of the pavement To determine the effects of patch size on stress magnitude and direction, the patch size was changed for the patch at the corner The patch friction coefficient was then changed for both the 5’ x 5’ (1.5 x 1.5 m2) and 7’x 7’ (2.1 x 2.1 m2) patches as follows: 1- Model with a 5’x 5’ (1.5 x 1.5 m2) patch, patch FC=1, FC=20 for the rest of the pavement 2- Model with a 5’x 5’ (1.5 x 1.5 m2) patch, patch FC=20, FC=1 for the rest of the pavement 3- Model with a 7’x 7’ (2.1 x 2.1 m2) patch, patch FC=1, FC=20 for the rest of the pavement 4- Model with a 7’x 7’ (2.1 x 2.1 m2) patch, patch FC=20, FC=1 for the rest of the pavement The principal stress directions across the width of the pavement at the transverse edge were calculated from the finite element output data After extracting all six components of stress state from the finite element output data, a stress tensor was assembled for calculation of principal stress directions Angles between maximum principal stress direction and the transverse (x), vertical (Y) and longitudinal (Z) axes are referred to as α, β, and γ angles, respectively RESULTS Figure shows the distribution of the normal transverse stresses (S11) at the edge of the patch for patches at the corner In this graph, size for patch means there is no patch or nonuniformity in the pavement-subbase interaction Stress(psi) -110 -90 -70 -50 7x7 -30 5x5 -10 10 24 48 72 96 120 144 Width of the Pavement(inch) Figure Distribution of S11 for patch at the corner (FC-Patch=1 and FC-Rest of the Pavement=20) [1 inch=2.54 cm, foot=30.48 cm, lbf=4.448 N] A change in the friction at the corner had a large effect on the stress magnitude As seen in Figure 9, the patch size has a large effect on the stress magnitude when the patch is near the transverse edge of the pavement The patches showed an abrupt change in the stress magnitude at 60 in (1.52 m) for the 7’x7’ (2.1 x 2.1 m2) and at 84 in (2.13 m) for the 5’ x 5’ (1.5 x 1.5 m2) patch, corresponding to the edge of each patch Figure 10 shows the angle between the maximum principal stress and longitudinal axis (γ angle) across the width of the pavement at the transverse edge for the two models with two different patch sizes 80 γ (deg) 70 60 50 7x7 40 5x5 30 20 10 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 Width of pavement (inch) Figure 10 Distribution of γ along transverse edge (FC-Patch=20 and FC-Rest of the Pavement=1) [1 inch= 2.54 cm, foot=30.48 cm] The patches showed an abrupt change in the principal stress direction at 60 in (1.52 m) for the 7’x7’ (2.1 x 2.1 m2) and at 84 in (2.13 m) for the 5’ x 5’ (1.5 x 1.5 m2) patch, corresponding to the edge of each patch Both sections showed principal stress directions at least 25° from the transverse direction, indicating a high potential for branching cracks and Ycracking Figure 11 and 12 compare two different models with different friction coefficients (FC) for the 7’ x 7’ (2.1 x 2.1 m2) patch and 5’ x 5’ (1.5 x 1.5 m2) patch, respectively For these models, FC was changed from to 20, with the FC for the remaining pavement changed from 20 to 80 γ (deg) 70 FC-Patch=1 FCPavement=2 60 50 40 FC-Patch=20 FCPavement=1 30 20 10 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 Width of pavement (inch) Figure 11 Distribution of γ along width of the pavement at transverse edge for 7’ x 7’ patches [1 inch= 2.54 cm, foot=30.48 cm] 10 140 γ (deg) 120 100 FC-Patch=1 FCPavement=20 80 60 FC-Patch=20 FCPavement=1 40 20 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 Width of pavement (inch) Figure 12 Distribution of γ along width of the pavement at transverse edge for 5’ x 5’ patches [1 inch= 2.54 cm, foot=30.48 cm] This data shows that a change in friction over a section of the pavement, whether an increase or decrease, will give non-uniform restraint and cause the principal stress direction to meander A decrease or increase in the pavement friction will cause the meandering to go in opposite directions It appears that a key to preventing y-cracking is subbase surface characteristic uniformity CONCLUSIONS Models with different friction coefficients between pavement layers were developed Different size patches with different friction coefficients were added to the pavement analysis The impact of these patch properties on the maximum principal stress direction was studied by changing the patch size, and friction coefficient of interaction between patch and the underneath layer A change in the friction at the corner had a large influence on the amount of stress and direction at the edge of the patch The patch size has a large effect on the stress magnitude when the patch is near the transverse edge of the pavement or an existing crack Results showed whether an increase or decrease in friction coefficient of interaction will give non-uniform restraint and cause the principal stress to change direction This data suggests that subbase nonuniformity could cause the meandering of Y-cracks ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would like to thank Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) for providing funding and Dr Tyler Ley for helping on this study 11 REFERENCES Choi, J H., & Roger, C H (2005) Design of Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements Using Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Rebars McLean: FHWA Momeni, A F (2013) Y-Cracking in Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements (Master thesis, Kansas State University) Kohler, & Roesler (2004) Active Crack Control for Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 19-29 Shiraz, T D., Stephanos, P J., Gagnon, J S., & Zollinger, D G (1998) Performance of Continiuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements Volume II-Field Investigations of CRC Pavements McLean: FHWA Kohler, E., & Roesler, J (2006) Accelerated Pavement Testing of Extended Life Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement Sections Springfield, IL: Illinois Department of Transportation ERES Consultants, Inc (2001) Summary of CRCP Design and Construction Practices in the U.S Schaumburg, Illinois: Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute Zollinger, D D (1994) Spalling of Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements Journal of Transportation Engineering, 394-411 Timm, D., Guzina, B., & Voller, V (January 2003) Prediction of Thermal Crack Spacing International Journal of Solids and Structures, 125-142 12 ... defined for each material were: young’s modulus (E), Poisson’s Ratio (ν), coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), mass density and thermal conductivity Table summarizes the layer geometry, mechanical... built for CRCP pavement structures in Oklahoma The pavement geometry and layer properties were based on typical values of Oklahoma CRCP Pavement layers were 3Dimensional, linear elastic layers The... could cause a change in the crack direction, potentially forming a Y- crack In this study, finite element model of CRCP using typical Oklahoma CRCP pavement conditions and design was assembled The