Wireless Power Week

17-21 June 2019

London / UK

Performance of Inductive Power Transfer-

based Pavements of Electrified Roads

Mr. Ahmed Marghani

Dr. Douglas Wilson
Dr. Tam Larkin

Introduction

 EVs and Environment

 Pros & Cons of IPT Technology for eRoads

 NZ’S IPT Road Project

 Design Criteria of Flexible Pavement

Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019

 Challenges for Implementing IPT
in Flexible Pavement

IPT Pad  IPT Pad 
Relative  Depth of 
Mechanical  Embedment 
Characteristics

Pavement 
Performance? 
IPT Pad Size, 
IPT Pad Heat 
Shape and 
Generation
Bond 

Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019

Research Scope

FE Model 
Size?

IPT Pad  IPT Pad 
Mechanical  Depth of 
Characteristics Embedment 

Pavement 
Responses?

Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019

 Research Design
Wheel Load 67.5 kN
Tire Contact Pressure 750 kPa Verification

Optimum 
9 tPavements
Asphalt Concrete 150 mm tPavement 
Design
300 mm Base Course FE 
Modelling

Subgrade ePavements 
∞ Critical 
6 ePavements
Responses

Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019

FE Modelling and Assumptions

 Multi-layered Theory

 Axisymmetric Model
H= 50 a 

 Wheel Load and IPT

Pad at the Centre

Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019

 Verifying FE Solutions
Max. BC/SG  Min. BC/SG 
E_Ratio E_Ratio

 Modular Ratio Effect 0.4 Alternative1 Alternative2 Alternative3

Alternative4 Alternative5 Alternative6
Alternative7 Alternative8 Alternative9

Variation in Vertical Surface Deflection (mm)
 Chief Importance of
0.3

BC/SG Modular Ratio 0.2

 Minimum and 0.1

Maximum Variation
0.0
0 17 34 51 68 85 102 119 136 153 170 187
Distance from tire center (cm)

Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019

Optimum tPavement Design:

Rutting and Fatigue Life
1.5E+13
1.0E+13
8.0E+12

Fatigue Life
1.00E+14

 Asphalt Institute
Rutting Life
1.00E+13
2.3E+11
2.0E+11
1.8E+11

1.8E+11
1.1E+11

6.6E+10

Distress Models 1.00E+12

Wheel Load Repetitions

1.00E+11
1.1E+09

1.00E+10
1.1E+08
3.9E+07

3.1E+07

1.00E+09

 Optimum Pavement
8.5E+06

3.5E+06

1.00E+08
1.0E+06

Design
6.4E+05

1.00E+07
1.7E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+05
The Least Lives 
1.00E+04

 tPavement #3: Difference 1 2 3 4

Alternatives of  a Typical tPavement Geometry
5 6 7 8 9

Reference Pavement

Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019

 FE Modelling: ePavement Trials

 IPT Pad: Dimensions

and Shape
80 mm 
 3 Depths of Embedment Thick
and 3 Moduli

 6 ePavement Trials

Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019

Sensitivity of FE Model Size to IPT Pad

Characteristics

 Model Size Was Not 0.1

ePavement1
ePavement3
ePavement2
ePavement4

Sensitive
IPT Pad  ePavement5 ePavement6
Variation in Vertical Surface Deflection (mm)

0.0
0 17 34 51 68 85 102 119 136 153 170 187

 All Trials Showed Less

Surface Deflection
‐0.1

Trials of 
‐0.2
Highest Effect

 Least Depth + Highest

Modular ratio = Least
‐0.3
Distance from tire center (cm)

Surface Deflection
Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019
 Change in Location of Maximum Strains
Due to IPT Pad Depths

 Maximum Strains Mainly ‐100 0

Distance from tire centre (mm)  
100 200 300 400

Localized in AC Material 0

Depth 40 mm
Pad Surface 
Pad Surface  
Depth 70 mm

ePave.4
ePave.2
Selected pavement Depth  (mm)

AC  Thickness
‐50

 Highest Localization =
ePavement #2 ‐100

‐150

 Least Localization =
ePavement #6
tPavement ePavement 2
‐200
ePavement 4 ePavement 6

Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019

Variation of Maximum Positive

Strains
Tensile Horizontal Strain

 Negative Variation
300
Tensile Vertical Strain
232.49

Indicated Strain Relief

250
Positively‐oriented Shear
Strain
200 The Best 
Location; 
105.71

150
Least Strains
 Highest Relief =
Variation (%)

100

ePavement #6
24.40

50

0
‐1.50

‐8.01

‐8.59
‐11.49

 Least Relief =
‐50
‐42.02

‐51.55

ePavement #4 ‐100
ePavement 2 ePavement 4 ePavement 6
Pavement Sections of IPT Pad of Different Modulus and Depth of 
Embedment 

Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019

 Variation of Maximum Negative
Strains

1143.35
1350 Compressive Horizontal Strain
Compressive Vertical Strain
 Negative Variation
1200

1050 Negatively‐oriented Shear Strain

Indicated Strain Relief

721.09
900

750

413.97
600

Variance (%)
 Highest Relief =
450

300

ePavement #6

20.68

16.13
150

‐11.10

‐15.82

‐61.76
‐150

‐72.86
‐300

 Least Relief = ePavement 2 ePavement 4 ePavement 6

Pavement Sections of IPT Pad of Different Modulus and Depth of 

ePavement #2
Embedment 

The Best Location; 
Least Strains

Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019

Conclusions
 The FE model size was most sensitive to the modular
ratios of BC/SG rather than that of AC/BC or IPT Pad/
AC.

 The modular ratio of the IPT pad/AC layer can control

the proper depth of embedment in flexible pavements
for having ePavemnts of longer life.

 Implementing optimum constitutive models and real

vehicle manoeuvres in future FE numerical models
are recommended.
Wireless Power Week 2019 London 17-21 June 2019
Questions?