Seminar on Pavement Design System and Pavement Performance Models

Reykjavik, 22.–23. March, 2007

Mechanistic Pavement Design

A Road to Enhanced Understanding of Pavement Performance

Sigurdur Erlingsson
Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering
University of Iceland
Iceland
&
Dept. of Highway Engineering
VTI
Sweden
 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 Roughness
Fatigue
Cracking
Longitudinal
Cracking

Rutting

Thermal Cracking
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.
 Critical stress and strain locations
Load 50 kN, φ =
300 mm 1. Tensile strain at
pavement surface.
Asphalt 2. Tensile strain at bottom
asphalt.
Unbound or 3. Compressive stresses in
Bound top unbound base.
Base 4.Tensile strain at bottom
bound base
5. Vertical compressive
Subbase strain at top subbase.

6. Vertical compressive
Subgrade strain at top subgrade.

Use linear elastic multi layer system, so characterise materials with E and μ.
Assume full adhesion between the layers.
Use static load(s).
Use transfer functions (fatigue relations) to calculate pavement life.
Drawbacks: materials are NOT linear elastic. They are non linear elasto-visco-
plastic and often rate, temperature and moisture dependent.
Mechanistic-Empirical Design

• Mechanistically calculate pavement response (i.e.,

stresses, strains, and deflections) due to:
– Traffic loading
– Environmental conditions
• Accumulate damage over time
– Empirically relate damage over time to pavement distresses,
e.g.:
Cracking
Rutting
Faulting
• Calibrate (validation) predictions to observed field
performance
Mechanistic-Empirical Design
Climate Traffic
Materials

Structure

Damage

Time Distress
Response Damage
Accumulation
 Incremental design procedure – Flow diagram

i=0
1. Initial Condition and Structure
t=0

2. Geometry 3. Traffic and Loads 5. Climate and Enviroment

6. Response Model

4. Material Properties
i = i+1 7. Stresses, Strains,
ti+1 = ti+Δt Displacements

8. Performance Model

9. Structural Change ΔD

10. Current Condition Σ(ΔD)

11. History of Pavement Damage

Design criteria -
 Factors Influencing Performance and
Distress Development

• Traffic Loading
• Material Characteristics
• Climatic Conditions and Seasonal Variation of Material
Properties
Traffic loading
Dual wheels, super super single and
super single

20 cm 50 cm 34 cm
Contact pressure distributions

Vertical Lateral
pressure distribution
 Axle Load Spectrum - Weigh in Motion

WIM-stations
provide information on:
Axle loads
Number of load repetitions
Frequency distribution

F(t)
Example of a Axle Load Spectrum

Axle Load Number of Axles

(kN) Single Tandem Tridem 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

Dynamic testing simulates field conditions better than static

testing, therefore a better correlation is expected with field
performance.

Layer Test method Property

Asphalt Concrete Triaxial Testing Stiffness, perm def.
Indirect Tension Test Stiffness, Fatigue
Uniaxial Compression Creep
Bending Test Fatigue

Bitumin.stab. Triaxial Testing Stiffness

Base Course Indirect Tension Test Stiffness, Fatigue
Uniaxial Compression Creep

Unbound Triaxial Testing Stiffness, Permanent

granular Deformation Behaviour
materials
HMA Mixture:
Dynamic (Complex) Modulus
σ 0 Adjusted for temperature
E* =
ε 0 & time of loading.
| E*| = Dynamic modulus
σo = Maximum (peak) dynamic stress
εo = Peak recoverable axial strain

Phase lag
Stress
Strain

× (360 )
ti
φ=
Time
tp
HMA - Material Properties
Indirect Tension test

Deformation
Load
Time Time
W

AC σy εx

Base course

Subbase

Subgrade
Uniaxial Compression Test

Perm. def.
Load Number of load pulses
Time
W

AC σy
εy

Base course

Subbase

Subgrade
 Bending test
log N

Field fatigue

Lab fatigue

Shift factor (healing, lateral

wander, damage propagation,
stress redistribution
etc. 2.5 - 40)

4 p bending 2 p bending

log ε
Unbound Granular Materials
Repeated Load Triaxial testing
– Stiffness - Mr, ν (nonlinear behaviour).
– Permanent deformation behaviour

Perm. def.
Stiffness

Mean stress level Number of load pulses

Climatic conditions and seasonal variations
Temperature & Resistivity Probe
Environmental data for section 1.4.2
20
Gravimetric moisture cont. [%] Winter thaw Spring thaw

15
Non-frost Unfrozen moisture Unfrozen moisture
during winter during winter
10

1/3/00

1/4/00
1/10/99

1/12/99

31/1/00
31/10/99

31/12/99
15
Grundartangi
10
Temperature [°C]

-5

-10
1/1/00

1/2/00

1/3/00

1/4/00
1/10/99

1/11/99

1/12/99
Moisture Content vs. Time & Depth
20

15 Air temperature
10

Temperature [°C]
5

-5

-10

-15

15.3.02

31.3.02

16.4.02

2.5.02

18.5.02

3.6.02
Base
course

Subbase

Subgrade

March, 15th
2002
Frost Resistivity Probe

120

100 Sensor 1, d = 5 cm
Sensor 2, d = 10 cm

Relative conductivity [%
80

60

40

20

0
1

11

13

15

17

19

21

23
No. measurements
Vol. Moisture cont. and rel. conductivity
0.8
d= 7 cm
Vol. Moisture cont [-]

d= 17 cm
d= 42 cm
0.6 d= 57 cm
d= 95 cm
Vegraki [-]

d= 119 cm

0.4

0.2

0.0
1.1.06 31.1.06 2.3.06 1.4.06 1.5.06 31.5.06 30.6.06

100
Rel. Conductivity [%]

d= 10 cm
d= 15 cm
80 d= 40 cm
Hlutfallsleg rafleiðni

d= 55 cm
60 d= 110 cm

40

20

0
1.1.06 31.1.06 2.3.06 1.4.06 1.5.06 31.5.06 30.6.06
 Climatic data - Vatnsskard
April 4th, 2002

Temerature [°C] Rel. Conductivity [-] Norm. vol. moisture cont. [-]

-5 -2,5 0 2,5 5 0 50 100 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

0 0 0

20 20 20
Depth [cm]

Depth [cm]
Dýpi [cm]
40 40 40

60 60 60

80 80 80

100 100 100

120 120 120

 Climatic data - Vatnsskard
April 16th, 2002

Temperature [°C] Rel. Conductivity [-] Norm. vol. mositure cont. [-]

-5 0 5 10 15 0 50 100 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

0 0 0
Depth [cm]

20 20 20

40 40
Depth [cm]
40

Depth [cm]
60 60 60

80 80 80

100 100 100

120 120 120

Falling Weight Deflectometer tests

r0 r1 r2 r3 r4 r5

D4 D5
D3
D2
D1
D0
FWD backcalculations Stiffnesses
Base Course - Depth 0 - 20 cm

100000

10000
E1 [MPa]

1000

100
1.jan 31.jan 2.mar 1.apr 1.maí 31.maí 30.jún 30.júl 29.ágú

Subbase - Depth 20 - 60 cm

100000
E2 [MPa]

10000

1000

100
1.jan 31.jan 2.mar 1.apr 1.maí 31.maí 30.jún 30.júl 29.ágú
 Seasonal Variation of Stiffness in Unbound Layers

Stiffness

WINTER SPRING SUMMER AUTUMN

Base Course
Subgrade
 Validation
Full scale testing
Accelerated Pavement Testing

• Purpose
Heavy Vehicle Simulator
To increase the understanding of
pavements performance under
heavy loading conditions.
 The Pavement Structures (IS02 & IS03)

IS 02 IS 03
0 Surface dressing, 2 layers, 12-16/8-12 0 Surface dressing, 2 layers, 12-16/8-12
30 mm crushed aggregate 30 mm crushed aggregate, 30 mm
Bitumen stabilized base, 0-25 mm
Unbound base, 0-25 mm crushed crushed aggregate
aggregate 130
Unbound base, 0-25 mm crushed
aggregate

230 230
Subbase, 0-75 mm aggregate Subbase course, 0-75 mm aggregate

430 430
Subgrade, sand Subgrade, sand

z [mm] z [mm]
Response Testing - Numerical Simulations

• 2-D Axi & 3-D analysis.

• MLET & FEM analyses
• Linear and non-linear base behaviour

• Distress prediction
IS02 – Single wheel, p = 800 kPa
FEM: Vertical displacement
 IS02 Vertical Stresses vs. Depth
Stress σ z [kPa]
0 200 400 600 800 1000
W = 120 kN 0

Single wheel Dual wheel p = 900 kPa

10
0.0 Surface dressing
1.2
Unbound base course
20
Depth [cm]

20.3
Subbase

30
39.7
Subgrade

Measurem ents
40 3D FEM LE
Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3
2D Axi MLET LE
Depth [cm] 2D Axi MLET NLE
2D Axi FE LA
2D Axi FE NLE
50
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