Search

This paper focuses on the cause, possible solutions, and future prevention of pavement heave at a new construction project. We speculated that heaving on the east side of the project was caused by a reaction between the lime stabilizer and minerals in the soil. Because of a difference in soil chemistry, the west side of the project (which was still under construction) did not show evidence of heaving. A forensic investigation was initiated to test our hypothesis. The findings of the investigation concluded that the cause of the heaving on the east side of the road was related to the formation of the expansive mineral, ettringite. Ettringite formed due to the reaction of the lime stabilizer with seams of high sulfate soil on the east side. Laboratory testing did not find any effective stabilizer for the high-sulfate soils on the east side. Therefore, reconstruction would involve removing and replacing the treated layer with a select material that has less than 2,000 ppm sulfates. Test results indicate that there was no threat of sulfate heave on the west side. District personnel had performed the field conductivity tests to evaluate and monitor the concentration of the sulfate content on the remaining project. The treatment of 3%/72-h mellowing period/3% lime treatment was employed on the west side. The whole project has been completed for 1 year and no heave has been observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents three field projects to illustrate the integrated approach to forensic investigations of roadway pavement failures used widely in Texas. In each case, the combined ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and falling weight deflectometer (FWD) data were extremely useful for identifying contributing factors, such as stripping in the hot mix or localized areas of wet or weak base. Dynamic cone penetration (DCP) is used for validating problems with base and subbase layers. Laboratory tests are often required to complete the investigation, especially if the repair strategy calls for in-place recycling of the existing structure. The extent of stripping and high porosity that caused delamination for Projects 1 and 2 was detected by GPR and verified by core samples. GPR, FWD, DCP, and field soil samples all showed indications that the existing base on Project 1 was wet and the stiffness was only about one-third that of a typical flexible base in Texas. FWD data demonstrate that the pavement structures for Projects 1 and 2 were inadequate, so a rehabilitation strategy was selected that included structural strengthening. In Project 3, GPR, lab density, and permeability tests indicate that the dramatic pavement failures were attributable to moisture entering the base through a poorly compacted asphalt concrete layer and poor longitudinal joints. The base material was found to be highly susceptible to moisture and did not meet the Texas Department of Transportation’s compressive strength requirements when subjected to capillary soaking. The repetitive triaxial test results revealed that the stiffness and load-carrying capability became inadequate when the base materials were exposed to moisture. The pavement structure had been totally replaced in 2004. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Texas, many miles of plain jointed concrete pavement (JCP) were constructed without proper load transfer devices such as dowels. After a number of years of service, some JCP sections without dowels showed distresses in the form of faulting at transverse joints. Some of the sections were designed in accordance with the AASHTO 1986 Guide, which required 50–75 mm thicker slabs in exchange for not using dowels. This pavement design did not work, with faulting at transverse joints that cause poor ride. Dowel bar retrofit (DBR) was performed on four projects to restore the pavement condition. Overall, DBR restored load transfer efficiency and resulted in improvement of ride quality. Even where the subbase stiffness is 5–10 times less than the minimum value required for proper performance of JCPs, properly installed DBR effectively restored pavement condition with minimum faulting after decades of service. Therefore, it indicated that DBR is able to minimize the faulting even where there is poor base/subgrade support. This is significant in that there are no effective and practical methods to improve subbase conditions in existing concrete pavement, whereas DBR can restore pavement conditions at a reasonable cost. However, not all DBR projects were successful. In one DBR project, faulting in the range of 6.4–9.5 mm occurred after less than 2 years of treatment. Forensic investigation revealed voids under the dowel bars, which indicates poor consolidation of the grout material. Efforts are currently underway in TxDOT to improve specifications for grout materials and DBR construction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]