An IPRF Research Report Innovative Pavement Research Foundation Airport Concrete Pavement Technology Program Report IPRF-01-G-002-02-2 Acceptance Criteria of Airfield Concrete Pavement Using Seismic and Maturity Concepts Programs Management Office 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, IL 60077 May, 2006 An IPRF Research Report Innovative Pavement Research Foundation Airport Concrete Pavement Technology Program Report IPRF-01-G-002-02-2 Acceptance Criteria of Airfield Concrete Pavement Using Seismic and Maturity Concepts Principal Investigator Soheil Nazarian, PhD, PE Contributing Authors Deren Yuan, PhD Kurt Smith, PE Farhad Ansari, PhD Carlos Gonzalez, PE Programs Management Office 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, IL 60077 May, 2006 This report has been prepared by the Innovative Pavement Research Foundation under the Airport Concrete Pavement Technology Program. Funding is provided by the Federal Aviation Administration under Cooperative Agreement Number 01-G-002. Dr. Satish Agrawal is the Manager of the FAA Airport Technology R&D Branch and the Technical Manager of the Cooperative Agreement. Mr. Jim Lafrenz, P.E. is the Program Director for the IPRF. The Innovative Pavement Research Foundation and the Federal Aviation Administration thanks the Technical Panel that willingly gave of their expertise and time for the development of this report. They were responsible for the oversight and the technical direction. The names of those individuals on the Technical Panel follow. Mr. Jeff Rapol Federal Aviation Administration Dr. Kevin MacDonald, P.E. Cemstone Products Mr. Robert Taylor American Concrete Pavement Association Dr. Wayne Seiler, P.E. All About Pavements, Inc. Ms. Susan Winslow, P.E. Delta Airport Consultants, Inc. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented within. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Federal Aviation Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work represents a collaborative effort among the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC), Applied Pavement Technology (APTech), and the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC). At UTEP, Dr. Nasir Gharaibeh developed the PWL requirements for the new technologies. At UIC, Adam Tennant coordinated and conducted all the laboratory tests. At APTech, Mr. Steve Seeds and Mr. David Peshkin provided valuable input into various aspects of the work. Mr. Jim Bruinsma led the field testing activities at Aurora airport. At ERDC, Dr. Reed Freeman and Mr. Don Alexander helped develop a laboratory testing plan. Mr. Billy D. Neelly, and Mr. Airangel Berrios designed the concrete mixes and conducted extensive laboratory strength and seismic testing. The members of the research team would also like to express their sincere appreciation to Mr. Robert Reiser of the Aurora Municipal Airport, Mr. Randy Johnson of Sjostrom & Sons and Mr. Craig Louden of Crawford, Murphy & Tilly , for their support and cooperation in pavement testing. Also, thanks are extended to Mr. Richard Boudreau of Boudreau Engineering, Inc and personnel of the City of Atlanta, Department of Aviation for their unrelenting cooperation and assistance in both laboratory and field testing. We are grateful to the staff of FAA Technical Center for their help and close collaboration. We appreciate the help from Dr. Gordon Hayhoe, Mr. Murphy Flynn and Mr. Wayne Marsey. We would also like to thank Dr. Navneet Garg and Dr. Edward Gou of Galaxy Scientific for their enthusiasm and collaboration. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary................................................................................................................... VIII 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Objectives. ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Organization......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Assessing Parameters Important to Acceptance of PCC. .......................................................... 3 2.1 Important Structural Design Parameters.............................................................................. 3 2.1.1 Pavement Thickness...................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Concrete Strength.......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Parameters Impacting Concrete Strength............................................................................. 4 2.3 Methods of Measuring Important Parameters...................................................................... 5 2.4 Limitations of Current Methods........................................................................................... 6 2.5 Recommended Technologies for Further Evaluation. ......................................................... 7 3. Maturity and Seismic Concepts. ................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Maturity Method. ................................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Seismic Methods for Strength Estimate............................................................................... 9 3.2.1 Laboratory Seismic Tests.............................................................................................. 9 3.2.2 Field Seismic Tests. .................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Seismic Method for Thickness Measurement.................................................................... 11 3.4 Resource Requirements. .................................................................................................... 12 4. Implementation of Maturity and Seismic Concepts................................................................. 14 4.1 Protocol for Estimating Strength. ...................................................................................... 14 4.2 Protocol for Estimating Thickness..................................................................................... 16 4.3 Illustrative Example........................................................................................................... 16 4.4 PWL-Based Pay Schedule for seismic/maturity Criteria................................................... 19 5. Evaluation of Proposed Methodologies................................................................................... 22 5.1 Strength.............................................................................................................................. 22 5.1.1 Laboratory Study. ....................................................................................................... 22 5.1.2 Small Slab Study......................................................................................................... 22 5.1.3 Results and Evaluation................................................................................................ 26 5.2 Thickness. .......................................................................................................................... 34 6. Case Studies for Airport Projects............................................................................................. 38 6.1 Aurora Municipal Airport.................................................................................................. 38 6.1.1 Strength-Modulus/Maturity Calibrations.................................................................... 40 III 6.1.2 Correlation of Results from Lab and Field Tests........................................................ 42 6.1.3 Pavement Thickness Measurement............................................................................. 43 6.2 Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport............................................................... 43 6.2.1 Description of Experiment........................................................................................... 43 6.2.2 Results and Analysis................................................................................................... 45 7. Summary and Conclusions. ..................................................................................................... 51 7.1 Summary............................................................................................................................ 51 7.2 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 53 8. References................................................................................................................................ 54 IV LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 - Sensitivity of Pavement Performance to Key Design Parameters .............................. 3 Figure 3.1 - Maturity Measurement Tools...................................................................................... 8 Figure 3.2 - Setup of Free-Free Resonant Column (FFRC) Test.................................................... 9 Figure 3.3 - Typical Response from FFRC Test on a Conrete Cylinder .......................................