1 / 19

RPF November 2004: Roodekrans Trial Sections Pieter Strauss

RPF November 2004: Roodekrans Trial Sections Pieter Strauss. Condition Rating after Two Years. Traffic loading Typical structural failures Rating by panel of twenty people which included designers, clients and researchers Recommendations and the way forward. Traffic Loading.

nita-bentley
Download Presentation

RPF November 2004: Roodekrans Trial Sections Pieter Strauss

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RPF November 2004:Roodekrans Trial Sections Pieter Strauss

  2. Condition Rating after Two Years • Traffic loading • Typical structural failures • Rating by panel of twenty people which included designers, clients and researchers • Recommendations and the way forward

  3. Traffic Loading • Design based on conventional design methods • Intended to get failure within 6 months • Cum. traffic loading to date (2.7 years) 380 000 E80’s versus 60 000 designed for • Spread of heavy vehicle types and loading, including Volvo off-road dumpers (16 E80)

  4. Traffic loading: Monthly Statistics

  5. Traffic loading: E80 per Heavy Vehicle

  6. General Condition

  7. Drying Shrinkage on SFRC

  8. 50 mm “CRC”

  9. 75 mm “CRC”

  10. 100 mm “CRC”

  11. 100 mm Butt Jointed on CTS

  12. 140 mm Butt Jointed on Gravel

  13. Erosion Below Leave Slab

  14. Condition Rating by Panel • Average area of sections: 50 square meters • Percentage area of the section perceived as failed. One out of four panels failed = 25% • Perception of the rater as a client/designer and as a road user • The facility being used as a highway, street or hard standing (apron)

  15. 1. 75 SFRC on foam 2. 75 SFRC on CTS 3. 75 SFRC on ETB 4. 50 CRC on ETB/CTS 5. 75 CRC on ETB/CTS 6. 100 CRC on CTS 7. 100 butt joint. on CTS 8. 100 butt joint. on AC/CTS 9. 140 plain joint. on G5 10. 140 butt joint. on G5 11. 140 dowel on gravel on G5

  16. 1. 75 SFRC on foam 2. 75 SFRC on CTS 3. 75 SFRC on ETB 4. 50 CRC on ETB/CTS 5. 75 CRC on ETB/CTS 6. 100 CRC on CTS 7. 100 butt joint. on CTS 8. 100 butt joint. on AC/CTS 9. 140 plain joint. on G5 10. 140 butt joint. on G5 11. 140 dowel on gravel on G5

  17. 1. 75 SFRC on foam 2. 75 SFRC on CTS 3. 75 SFRC on ETB 4. 50 CRC on ETB/CTS 5. 75 CRC on ETB/CTS 6. 100 CRC on CTS 7. 100 butt joint. on CTS 8. 100 butt joint. on AC/CTS 9. 140 plain joint. on G5 10. 140 butt joint. on G5 11. 140 dowel on gravel on G5

  18. Recommendations and Way Forward • Keep on monitoring • Maintain where necessary • Feedback into cncPave • Apply knowledge elsewhere especially where slab support is relatively good, traffic loading is moderate and labour intensive construction is considered

More Related