Research, Smoothness and Mix Design

RCCP Design and
Construction Workshop
RCCP Research:
Smoothness & Mix Design
By: Anton Schindler, Ph.D.

Gottlieb Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Auburn University
November 3, 2005 – Atlanta, GA
Acknowledgments
Auburn University – Highway Research Center

Project 02-13275, “Roller Compacted Concrete
Pavements for use with Higher Speed Traffic”
Vijay Puppala, Auburn M.S. Graduate

Currently with the Michael Baker
Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey
Will Gray
Arranged access to various RCC sites
Presentation Overview
Introduction
Options to Reduce the Roughness of
RCCP
Laboratory Testing
Roughness of RCC Sections
Concluding Remarks
Introduction
Options to Reduce the Roughness of RCCP
Laboratory Testing
Concluding Remarks
Typical Applications
Truck stops and weighing stations

Industrial access roads
Rest areas
Parking lots
Ports
Military utilities
Interstate shoulders
Limitations of RCC
RCC does not provide all the features
of conventional concrete pavement:
Surface texture and uniformity
Pavement smoothness
Aesthetics of
surface
Limitations of RCC
RCC is a viable pavement choice when

> 3 acres of pavement is required and traffic
speeds ≤ 35 mph
When speeds > 35 mph use traditional Concrete
or Overlay RCC with HMA
Research Objectives
Determine if RCC is smooth enough

for traffic speeds ≤ 55 mph
Compare the IRI of selected RCCP
sections to that of PCC & HMA
sections
Evaluate means to improve the
roughness of RCC pavements
Introduction
Options to Reduce the Roughness
of RCCP
Laboratory Testing
Concluding Remarks
Options to reduce Roughness of RCCP
Option 1: Use a HMA Overlay
Option 2: Optimize the RCC mixture proportions
Option 3: Use an improved paver
Option 4: Grinding
Option 1: Use a HMA Overlay

Literature study
Piggott (1999)
Reflective cracking is main concern
1) HMA overlay without any treatment to
mitigate reflection cracking
2) Saw cut and seal joints to mitigate
reflection cracking
Validate with field test plan
Cost of Option 2 > Option 1

Option 2: Optimize the RCC mixture
proportions
Literature study
Piggott (1999), Jameson et al. (1990)
Performance of RCC projects without an
HMA overlay
Performance of RCC projects that
changed the mixture design
This option is feasible

Validate with field test plan
Introduction
Laboratory Testing
Concluding Remarks
Laboratory Testing - Objectives
Compare the engineering properties of

experimental RCC to that of Conv. RCC and
Conv. PCC:
Compressive strength - ASTM C 39
Splitting tensile strength - ASTM C 496
Modulus of elasticity - ASTM C 469
Drying shrinkage – ASTM C 157
Permeability – ASTM C 1202
Recommend a RCC mixture for field evaluation

Laboratory Testing
Mixture Conv. PCC Conv. RCC 78-RCC1 78-RCC2 78-RCC3
Water % 6.5 5.0 5.5 5.8 6.3*
content (pcy) 245 201 232 232 247
Cement (pcy) 428 405 400 440 400
Class C Fly ash (pcy) 183 130 150 110 100
Natural sand (pcy) 1207 1615 1572 1729 1733
#57 crushed stone (pcy) 1930 - - - -
#67 crushed stone (pcy) - 955 - - -
#78 crushed stone (pcy) - - 1076 814 814
#89 crushed stone (pcy) - 954 796 897 897
w/cm 0.40 0.38 0.42 0.42 0.49
* moisture content was 0.5% above the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) of that mixture
Determine - “Optimum” moisture
Laboratory Testing - Gradations
CRCC 78RCC1 78RCC2 ACI 325 Limits
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25.4 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075
Sieve size (mm)
Note: No. 78 stone was used to improve smoothness

RCC Fresh Properties
RCC Consistency
Before Test
Mortar Ring
After Test
Results: Consistency
Conv. RCC 78-RCC1 78-RCC2 78-RCC3
Consistency
90 57 55 50
(sec.)
As the consistency decreases, the workability

and finishability of the RCC is improved
Fabrication of RCC Specimens
According to ASTM C 1435 (1999)

Using Kango vibratory hammer
Three lifts
Tough job / high variability
Fabrication of RCC Specimens
Results: Compressive Strength
CPCC CRCC 78RCC1 78RCC2 78RCC3
10000
Compressive strength (psi)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
Age of concrete (days)
Compressive strength – comparable to Conv.

RCC and higher than the avg. 28-day strength -
4500 psi: ACI 325
Results: Splitting Tensile Strength
700
Splitting Tensile Strength (psi)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
Splitting tensile strength – comparable to Conv.

RCC and Conv. PCC and within the specified
limits of ACI 325 – 400 to 600 psi at 28 days
Results: Modulus of Elasticity
8000
7000
Modulus of elasticity (ksi)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
Modulus of Elasticity – comparable to Conv.

RCC and Conv. PCC
Results: Drying Shrinkage
0
Drying Shrinkage (microstrain)
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98
Concrete age since drying (days)
Drying shrinkage – comparable to Conv. RCC

and Conv. PCC
Results: Permeability
Conv. Conv.
78-RCC1 78-RCC2 78-RCC3
PCC RCC
Coulomb 1,250 1,100 1,450 1,800 1,900
Permeability of RCC in the “low” permeability range

ASTM C 1202 permeability
ranges for concrete:
> 4000 C = High
2000 – 4000 C = Moderate
1000 – 2000 C = Low
100 – 1000 C = Very low
Results - Summary
Most of the engineering properties of the

experimental mixtures are comparable to
Conv. RCC and Conv. PCC
Mix 78-RCC2 is recommended for field

evaluation
Introduction
Laboratory Testing
Concluding Remarks
Approach:
Measure the roughness for in-place RCC

sections
Evaluate the roughness of RCC sections by
comparing IRI values to that of PCC and
HMA sections
IRI – Test Equipment
ARAN Van
Inertial Profiler (Automated profiling system):

It is not affected by texture of road and speed of the vehicle
(From Sayers and Karamihas 1998)
For vehicles traveling at ≤ 55 mph,

select an IRI between 130 - 250 in/mi.
IRI - Background
RCCP Range for ≤ 55 mph ?

PCC Pavements
HMA Pavements
Linear (PCC & HMA)
(California-type profilograph)
Relationship between IRI and manually generated PI5-mm (PI0.2-in)

(Kulakowski and Wambold 1989)
IRI – Test Sections
RCC Test sections:

4 x RCC: Honda plant at Lincoln, AL
7” thick → Built 2000 to 2003
4 x RCC: NSE Plant at Talladega, AL
7” thick → Built 2000 and 2002
Reference sections:
GA JCP: I85 between mile posts 15 & 16
AL HMA: I85 between mile posts 44 & 42
IRI – Honda Test Section
Honda Plant, Lincoln, AL
External Vibrating Screed and Tamping Bars

Honda Plant, Lincoln, AL
Crushed Aggregate Base

IRI – Results (Honda S1)
Honda S1-Left Wheel Path Honda S1-Right Wheel Path
IH 85 HMA IH 85 JCP-NB
400
(Entrance road extension - Paved in 2003)
350
300
IRI Values (in/mi)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
Chainage (ft)
Roughness is high and highly irregular

Most IRI values are between 130 and 250 in/mi.
(N-S Entrance road - Paved in 2001)
400
350
300
IRI Values (in/mi)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080
Chainage (ft)

Roughness is low from 300 to 600 ft.
Most the IRI values are less than 250 in/mi.
(Main Entrance road - Paved in 2002)
400
350
300
IRI Values (in/mi)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
Chainage (ft)
RCC roughness is just a little more than IH 85 HMA

Most RCC IRI values are less than 130 in/mi.
(Main entrance road – HMA overlay in 2003)
400
350
300
IRI Values (in/mi)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080
Chainage (ft)
HMA overlaid – still roughness is high

Roughness is low between 400 to 800 ft.
All the IRI values are less than 250 in/mi.
IRI – Results (NSE S1)
NSE S1-Left Wheel Path NSE S1-Right Wheel Path
(Eastbound main entrance road – Paved in 2001)
600
500
Wheel Path IRI (in/mi)
400
300
200
100
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840
Chainage (ft)
HMA Roughness is very low except at the

beginning and the end of the section
(Westbound main entrance road – Paved in 2001)
400
350
300
IRI Values (in/mi)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
Chainage (ft)

All the IRI values are less than 250 in/mi.
(Eastbound truck loading area – Paved in 2003)
400
350
Wheel Path IRI (in/mi)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
Chainage (ft)
Roughness is very low except at the

beginning and the end of the section.
(Westbound truck loading area – Paved in 2003)
400
350
300
IRI Values (in/mi)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
Chainage (ft)

Most of the IRI values are less than 250
IRI – Results Summary
Most of the IRI values of the RCC sections

are less than 250 in/mi.
RCC sections are not too rough
The roughness of some portions of the

RCC sections is comparable to I85 HMA
sections
RCC pavements can be constructed
smooth enough for traffic speeds ≤ 55 mph
I-285 Shoulder Replacement, Atlanta
JCP RCC
IRI ?
Introduction
Laboratory Testing
Concluding Remarks
Concluding Remarks
HMA overlay without any treatment to

mitigate reflection cracking is an option to
reduce the roughness of RCCP surface
Saw cut and seal method is an option to

mitigate reflection cracking on an HMA
overlay
Concluding Remarks
Most of the IRI values in all the RCC

sections are less than 250 in/mi.
RCCpavements can be constructed

smooth enough for traffic speeds ≤ 55 mph
Validate with proposed field test plan
Modified
RCC mixtures have properties
comparable to Conv. RCC and Conv. PCC
Thank you for listening.
Questions are welcome !
By: Anton Schindler, Ph.D.

Gottlieb Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Auburn University

Research, Smoothness and Mix Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research, Smoothness and Mix Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCCP Design and

By: Anton Schindler, Ph.D.

 Auburn University – Highway Research Center

 Vijay Puppala, Auburn M.S. Graduate

 Truck stops and weighing stations

 RCC is a viable pavement choice when

 Determine if RCC is smooth enough

Option 1: Use a HMA Overlay

Option 2: Optimize the RCC mixture proportions

Option 3: Use an improved paver

Option 1: Use a HMA Overlay

 Cost of Option 2 > Option 1

 This option is feasible

 Compare the engineering properties of

 Recommend a RCC mixture for field evaluation

Cement (pcy) 428 405 400 440 400

Class C Fly ash (pcy) 183 130 150 110 100

Natural sand (pcy) 1207 1615 1572 1729 1733

#57 crushed stone (pcy) 1930 - - - -

#67 crushed stone (pcy) - 955 - - -

#78 crushed stone (pcy) - - 1076 814 814

#89 crushed stone (pcy) - 954 796 897 897

w/cm 0.40 0.38 0.42 0.42 0.49

Sieve size (mm)

Note: No. 78 stone was used to improve smoothness

Conv. RCC 78-RCC1 78-RCC2 78-RCC3

As the consistency decreases, the workability

 According to ASTM C 1435 (1999)

Age of concrete (days)

 Compressive strength – comparable to Conv.

Age of concrete (days)

 Splitting tensile strength – comparable to Conv.

Age of concrete (days)

 Modulus of Elasticity – comparable to Conv.

Concrete age since drying (days)

 Drying shrinkage – comparable to Conv. RCC

Coulomb 1,250 1,100 1,450 1,800 1,900

 Permeability of RCC in the “low” permeability range

 Most of the engineering properties of the

 Mix 78-RCC2 is recommended for field

 Measure the roughness for in-place RCC

Inertial Profiler (Automated profiling system):

For vehicles traveling at ≤ 55 mph,

RCCP Range for ≤ 55 mph ?

Linear (PCC & HMA)

Relationship between IRI and manually generated PI5-mm (PI0.2-in)

 RCC Test sections:

External Vibrating Screed and Tamping Bars

Crushed Aggregate Base

 Roughness is high and highly irregular

 Roughness is high and highly irregular

 RCC roughness is just a little more than IH 85 HMA

 HMA overlaid – still roughness is high

 HMA Roughness is very low except at the

 Roughness is high and highly irregular

 Roughness is very low except at the

 Roughness is high and highly irregular

 Most of the IRI values of the RCC sections

 The roughness of some portions of the

 HMA overlay without any treatment to

 Saw cut and seal method is an option to

 Most of the IRI values in all the RCC

 RCCpavements can be constructed

Auburn University – Highway Research Center

Vijay Puppala, Auburn M.S. Graduate

Truck stops and weighing stations

RCC is a viable pavement choice when

Determine if RCC is smooth enough

Cost of Option 2 > Option 1

This option is feasible

Compare the engineering properties of

Recommend a RCC mixture for field evaluation

According to ASTM C 1435 (1999)

Compressive strength – comparable to Conv.

Splitting tensile strength – comparable to Conv.

Modulus of Elasticity – comparable to Conv.

Drying shrinkage – comparable to Conv. RCC

Permeability of RCC in the “low” permeability range

Most of the engineering properties of the

Mix 78-RCC2 is recommended for field

Measure the roughness for in-place RCC

RCC Test sections:

Roughness is high and highly irregular

Roughness is high and highly irregular

RCC roughness is just a little more than IH 85 HMA

HMA overlaid – still roughness is high

HMA Roughness is very low except at the

Roughness is high and highly irregular

Roughness is very low except at the

Roughness is high and highly irregular

Most of the IRI values of the RCC sections

The roughness of some portions of the

HMA overlay without any treatment to

Saw cut and seal method is an option to

Most of the IRI values in all the RCC

RCCpavements can be constructed