mechanistic pavement design - vegagerðin
TRANSCRIPT
Mechanistic Pavement DesignA Road to Enhanced Understanding of Pavement Performance
Sigurdur ErlingssonDept. of Civil and Env. EngineeringUniversity of IcelandIceland&Dept. of Highway EngineeringVTISweden
Seminar on Pavement Design System and Pavement Performance ModelsReykjavik, 22.–23. March, 2007
Outline
• The Problem• Current Design Methods• Mechanistic-Empirical Design Methods• Important Factors Influencing Pavement Performance
– Traffic Loading– Material Characteristics– The Climatic Conditions and Seasonal Variation of Pavement Response
• Response Calculation and Distress Prediction• Validation
– Accelerated Testing of Pavement Structure
• Conclusion
The Problem Distress Mechanisms
Longitudinal Longitudinal CrackingCracking
RoughnessRoughness
Thermal CrackingThermal Cracking
RuttingRutting
Fatigue Fatigue CrackingCracking
Current Design Methods
• Relay on empirical correlations with past performance.• Based on 1950´s AASHTO Road Test data.• Index value based characterization
– R-value– CBR-value
• They are obscure and difficult to apply in new situations.
Load 50 kN, φ
= 300 mm
Asphalt
Unbound or BoundBase
Subbase
Subgrade
1. Tensile strain at pavement surface.2. Tensile strain at bottom asphalt.3. Compressive stresses in top unbound base.4.Tensile strain at bottom bound base5. Vertical compressive strain at top subbase.
6. Vertical compressive strain at top subgrade.
CriticalCritical stress and stress and strainstrain locationslocations
UseUse linearlinear elasticelastic multimulti layerlayer system, system, soso characterisecharacterise materialsmaterials withwith E and E and μμ..AssumeAssume full full adhesionadhesion betweenbetween the the layerslayers..UseUse static static loadload(s).(s).UseUse transfer transfer functionsfunctions ((fatiguefatigue relations) to relations) to calculatecalculate pavementpavement lifelife..Drawbacks: Drawbacks: materialsmaterials are NOT are NOT linearlinear elasticelastic. . TheyThey are non are non linearlinear elastoelasto--viscovisco-- plasticplastic and and oftenoften raterate, , temperaturetemperature and and moisturemoisture dependentdependent..
Mechanistic-Empirical Design
•• MechanisticallyMechanistically calculate pavement response (i.e., stresses, strains, and deflections) due to:– Traffic loading– Environmental conditions
• Accumulate damagedamage over time–– EmpiricallyEmpirically relate damage over time to pavement distresses,
e.g.:CrackingRuttingFaulting
•• CalibrateCalibrate (validation) predictions to observed field performance
Mechanistic-Empirical Design
Climate TrafficMaterials
Structure
DistressResponse
Time
Damage
Damage Accumulation
Incremental design procedure – Flow diagram
1. Initial Condition and Structure
2. Geometry
4. Material Properties
6. Response Model
10. Current Condition Σ(ΔD)
5. Climate and Enviroment
7. Stresses, Strains,Displacements
9. Structural Change ΔD
8. Performance Model
i = 0t = 0
11. History of Pavement Damage
i = i+1ti+1 = ti +Δt
3. Traffic and Loads
Factors Influencing Performance and Distress Development
• Traffic Loading• Material Characteristics• Climatic Conditions and Seasonal Variation of Material
Properties
Contact Contact pressurepressure distributionsdistributions
Vertical LateralVertical Lateralpressure distributionpressure distribution
Axle Load Spectrum - Weigh in Motion
WIM-stationsprovide information on:Axle loadsNumber of load repetitionsFrequency distribution
F(t)
Example of a Axle Load SpectrumExample of a Axle Load Spectrum
Axle Load(kN)
Single
NumberTandem
of AxlesTridem
Quad
50-70 3.000 200 60 5 70-90 1.000 1.000 300 10 90-110 100 3.000 600 30 110-130 30 2.000 800 80 130-150 4 1.000 1.000 100
etc
Material Properties - Dynamic testing
Layer Test method Property
Asphalt Concrete Triaxial Testing Indirect Tension TestUniaxial CompressionBending Test
Stiffness, perm def.Stiffness, Fatigue CreepFatigue
Bitumin.stab. Base Course
Triaxial TestingIndirect Tension TestUniaxial Compression
StiffnessStiffness, Fatigue Creep
Unbound granular materials
Triaxial Testing Stiffness, Permanent Deformation Behaviour
Dynamic testing simulates field conditions better than static testing, therefore a better correlation is expected with field performance.
HMA Mixture: Dynamic (Complex) Modulus
0
0*εσ
=E
Stress
Strain
Phase lag
Time
| E*| = Dynamic modulusσo = Maximum (peak) dynamic stressεo = Peak recoverable axial strain
( )360×=p
i
ttφ
Adjusted for temperature & time of loading.
HMA - Material Properties Indirect Tension test
W
AC
Subbase
Subgrade
εx σy
Base course
Time
Loa
d
Time
Def
orm
atio
n
Uniaxial Compression Test
W
AC
Subbase
Subgrade
εy σy
Base course
Time
Loa
dNumber of load pulses
Perm
. def
.
Bending test
4 p bending 2 p bending
log log εε
log Nlog N
Field Field fatiguefatigue
Lab Lab fatiguefatigue
Shift factor (Shift factor (healinghealing, , laterallateralwanderwander, , damagedamage propagationpropagation,,stress stress redistributionredistributionetc. 2.5 etc. 2.5 -- 40)40)
Unbound Granular Materials Repeated Load Triaxial testing
– Stiffness - Mr , ν
(nonlinear behaviour).– Permanent deformation behaviour
Number of load pulses
Perm
. def
.
Mean stress level
Stiff
ness
Environmental data for section 1.4.2
Unfrozen moistureduring winter
0
5
10
15
201/
10/9
9
31/1
0/99
1/12
/99
31/1
2/99
31/1
/00
1/3/
00
1/4/
00
Gra
vim
etri
c m
oist
ure
cont
. [%
]
Winter thaw
Unfrozen moistureduring winter
Spring thaw
Non-frost
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
1/10
/99
1/11
/99
1/12
/99
1/1/
00
1/2/
00
1/3/
00
1/4/
00
Tem
pera
ture
[°C
] Grundartangi
Moisture Content vs. Time & Depth
Subgrade
Subbase
Base course
March, 15th 2002
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
15.3
.02
31.3
.02
16.4
.02
2.5.
02
18.5
.02
3.6.
02
Tem
pera
ture
[°C
]
Air temperature
Frost Resistivity Probe
Sensor 1, d = 5 cm Sensor 2, d = 10 cm
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
No. measurements
Rel
ativ
e co
nduc
tivity
[%
Vol. Moisture cont. and rel. conductivity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.1.06 31.1.06 2.3.06 1.4.06 1.5.06 31.5.06 30.6.06
Vegr
aki [
-]
d = 7 cmd = 17 cmd = 42 cmd = 57 cmd = 95 cmd = 119 cm
0
20
40
60
80
100
1.1.06 31.1.06 2.3.06 1.4.06 1.5.06 31.5.06 30.6.06
Hlu
tfalls
leg
rafle
iðni
d = 10 cmd = 15 cmd = 40 cmd = 55 cmd = 110 cm
Vol. M
oisture cont [-]R
el. Conductivity [%
]
Climatic data - Vatnsskard
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-5 -2,5 0 2,5 5
Temerature [°C]
Dep
th [c
m]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 50 100
Rel. Conductivity [-]
Dýp
i [cm
]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
Norm. vol. moisture cont. [-]
Dep
th [c
m]
April 4th, 2002
Climatic data - Vatnsskard
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-5 0 5 10 15
Temperature [°C]
Dep
th [c
m]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 50 100
Rel. Conductivity [-]
Dep
th [c
m]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
Norm. vol. mositure cont. [-]
Dep
th [c
m]
April 16th, 2002
FWD backcalculations StiffnessesBase Course - Depth 0 - 20 cm
100
1000
10000
100000
1.jan 31.jan 2.mar 1.apr 1.maí 31.maí 30.jún 30.júl 29.ágú
E1 [M
Pa]
Subbase - Depth 20 - 60 cm
100
1000
10000
100000
1.jan 31.jan 2.mar 1.apr 1.maí 31.maí 30.jún 30.júl 29.ágú
E2 [M
Pa]
Seasonal Variation of Stiffness in Unbound Layers
WINTER SPRING SUMMER AUTUMN
Subg
rade
Bas
e C
ours
e
Stiffness
Validation
Full scale testing
Accelerated Pavement Testing
• Purpose
To increase the understanding of pavements performance under heavy loading conditions.
Heavy Vehicle Simulator
The Pavement Structures (IS02 & IS03)
Surface dressing, 2 layers, 12-16/8-12 mm crushed aggregate
230
430
z [mm]
Subbase, 0-75 mm aggregate
Subgrade, sand
Unbound base, 0-25 mm crushed aggregate
030
Surface dressing, 2 layers, 12-16/8-12 mm crushed aggregate, 30 mm
230
430
z [mm]
Subbase course, 0-75 mm aggregate
Subgrade, sand
Unbound base, 0-25 mm crushed aggregate
030
Bitumen stabilized base, 0-25 mm crushed aggregate
130
IS 02 IS 03
Response Testing - Numerical Simulations
• 2-D Axi & 3-D analysis.
• MLET & FEM analyses
• Linear and non-linear base behaviour
• Distress prediction
IS02 Vertical Stresses vs. Depth
Depth [cm]
0.0
Surface dressing
Unbound base course
Subbase
Subgrade
1.2
20.3
39.7
Single wheel Dual wheel
Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3
W = 120 kN 0
10
20
30
40
50
0 200 400 600 800 1000Stress σz [kPa]
Dep
th [c
m]
Measurements3D FEM LE2D Axi MLET LE2D Axi MLET NLE2D Axi FE LA2D Axi FE NLE
p = 900 kPa
Conclusions
• Mechanistic - empirical based design methods are under development in many countries and will therefore probably be in use in the near future. To be able to use such methods we need to obtain information for modelling purposes on factors affecting pavement performances, such as– Axle loading – Material properties – Weather and environmental conditions
• Further we need information to calibrate and validate such methods if acceptable agreement between real performance and our estimation is to be achieved.
Conclusions cont.
• What will we gain– Far more realistic pavement characterization– Better understanding of pavement performances– Effects of new loading conditions such as increased loads,
higher tyre pressure and multiple axle, can easily be estimated
– Future enhanced or improved knowledge can be easily implemented