Flexible Pavement Performance Flexible Pavement Performance Models in MEPDG Models in MEPDG Lev Khazanovich Lev Khazanovich University of Minnesota University of Minnesota Seminar on Pavement Design Systems and Pavement Performance Models March 22 – 23, 2007 Reykjavik, Iceland
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Flexible Pavement Performance Flexible Pavement Performance Models in MEPDGModels in MEPDG
Lev KhazanovichLev Khazanovich University of MinnesotaUniversity of Minnesota
Seminar on Pavement Design Systems and Pavement Performance Models
March 22 –
23, 2007 Reykjavik, Iceland
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsGuide for Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavements Structures (NCHRP 1-37A and 1-40D).• Arizona State University (Prof. Matt Witczak, Mohamed El-Basyouny, & many others) • University of Maryland (Prof. C. Schwartz)• University of Illinois (Prof. W. Butler)• Several consultants around the world
Many slides in this presentation were developed under the above projects
OutlineOutline
• Overview of the MEPDG• Load Related Cracking• Rutting Models• Thermal Cracking• Roughness models • Conclusions
Fatigue Damage Accumulates Over TimeFatigue Damage Accumulates Over Time
TIME
FATIGUECRACKING
DesignPeriod
Criteria
( )∑∑= = ⎥
⎥⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎣
⎡=Δ
m
k
j
i ki
i
tN
nDI1 1 ε
SeasonLoadTop DownBottom Up
Allowable Number of Load ApplicationsAllowable Number of Load Applications
( )( ) ( ) ( ) 332211
ffff kHMA
ktfHff ECCkN ββεβ=
Nf = Allowable number of axle load applications εt = Tensile strain at critical locations EHMA= Dynamic modulus of the HMA, psi kf1, kf2, kf3= Global field calibration parameters βf1, βf2, βf3= Local calibration constants; =1.0 by default
Allowable Number of Load Applications (cont.)Allowable Number of Load Applications (cont.)
( )( ) ( ) ( ) 332211
ffff kHMA
ktfHff ECCkN ββεβ=
MC 10= ⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛−
+= 69.084.4
bea
be
VVV
M
( )HMAH
H
e
C
49.302.111003602.0000398.0
1
−++
=
( )HMAH
H
e
C
8186.2676.15100.1201.0
1
−++
=
Bottom-up cracking
Top-down cracking
Vb e= Effective asphalt content by volume, percent Va = Percent air voids in the HMA mixture CH = Thickness correction term
BottomBottom--Up Cracking Up Cracking
⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛
⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛+
= + 601*
e16000
100))*log10(D**C'C*C'(C 2211bottomFCwhere:
FCbottom
= bottom-up fatigue cracking, percent lane area
D
= bottom-up fatigue damageC1
= 1.0'2
'1 2CC −= 12 =C
856.22 )1(*748.3940874.2' −+−−= hacC
TopTop--Down CrackingDown Cracking
where:FCtop
= top-down fatigue cracking, ft/mileD
= top-down fatigue damage
( )( ) ⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛+
= − TopDILogCCTop eC
FC211
56.10 4
Factors Affecting Fatigue Cracking in Factors Affecting Fatigue Cracking in Flexible Pavements Flexible Pavements
• HMA layer thickness.• HMA layer dynamic modulus.• Binder grade in the HMA
mixture.• Air voids in the asphalt layers.• Effective binder content in the
asphalt layers.
Factors Affecting Fatigue Cracking in Factors Affecting Fatigue Cracking in Flexible Pavements Flexible Pavements
• Base thickness.• Subgrade modulus.• Traffic load configuration.• Traffic load, contact area and
tire pressure.• Traffic load repetitions.• Temperature and environmental
conditions.
BottomBottom--Up Fatigue (Alligator) Up Fatigue (Alligator) Cracking CalibrationCracking Calibration
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Log Damage (%)
Alli
gato
r Cra
ckin
g (%
of T
otal
Lan
e A
rea)
Se = 5.01%Se/Sy = 0.815N = 405R2 = 0.275
Log Damage (%)Alli
gato
r Cra
ckin
g (%
of
Tota
l Lan
e A
rea)
TopTop--Down Fatigue (Longitudinal) Down Fatigue (Longitudinal) Cracking CalibrationCracking Calibration
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Measured Cracking (ft / mile)
Pre
dict
ed C
rack
ing
(ft /
mile
)
R2 = 0.544Se = 582.8 ft /mileSe/Sy = 0.688N = 312
Measured Cracking (ft/mile)
Pred
icte
d C
rack
ing
(ft/m
ile)
Effect of AC Thickness on CrackingEffect of AC Thickness on CrackingBottom Up Cracking - Alligator
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0 36 72 108 144 180 216
Pavement Age (month)
Alli
gato
r Cra
ckin
g (%
)
50 mm
75 mm
100 mm
150 mm
Permanent Deformation Accumulates Over TimePermanent Deformation Accumulates Over Time
TIME
RUTDEPTH
DesignPeriod
Criteria
( )( )[ ]∑∑∑= = =
=Δm
k
j
i
l
dikddP hRD
1 1 1,
εLoad Month Depth
Accumulation of RuttingAccumulation of Rutting
∑=
×ε=N sub-layers
1i
iip hPD
Load, P
AC Layer
Base Layer
Subgrade
See Fig. A.
Fig. A
εp from pred. Eq.
Sub-layer
Similar for unbound layers
Permanent Deformation in AC LayerPermanent Deformation in AC Layer
iβ
where:εp =Accumulated plastic strain at N repetitions of load (in/in)εr = Resilient strain of the asphalt material as a function of mix
properties, temperature and time rate of loading (in/in)N = Number of load repetitionsT = Temperature (deg F)ai
= Non-linear regression coefficients= field calibration factors
rrTNkh HMArzrHMAHMAp
HMAp 32 *5606.1*4791.035412.3)(1
)(
)( 10 ββεβε
−==Δ
Permanent Deformation in Unbound Permanent Deformation in Unbound Layer (Layer (Tseng and Tseng and LyttonLytton
Model)Model)
Δp(Soil) = Permanent or plastic deformation for the layer/sublayer N = Number of axle load applications εo, β, and ρ = material properties obtained for the resilient strain εr εv = Average vertical resilient or elastic strain in the layer/sublayer hSoil = Thickness of the unbound layer/sublayer, inches ks1 = Global calibration coefficients; =1.673 for granular materials =1.35 for fine-grained materials βs1 = Local calibration constant
βρ
εε
εβ⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛−
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛=Δ N
r
osoilvsssoilp ehk 11)(
Total Pavement Total Pavement -- RuttingRutting
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Average Measured Total Rutting (in)
Pre
dict
ed T
otal
Rut
ting
(in)
Predicted vs Measured Total Rutting Equality Line
R2 = 0.577N = 334Se = 0.107Se/Sy = 0.818
Average Measured Rutting
Ave
rage
Pre
dict
ed R
uttin
g
Effect of AC Thickness of RuttingEffect of AC Thickness of RuttingPermanent Deformation: Rutting
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 36 72 108 144 180 216
Pavement Age (month)
Rut
ting
Dep
th (m
m)
Hac=50 mmHac=75 mmHac=100 mmHac=150 mm
Thermal CrackingThermal Cracking
HMAHMA--Thermal FractureThermal Fracture
• Uses SHRP Thermal Fracture Model– Recalibrated Using Approximately 30 Sections in
NCHRP Project 9-19
• Thermal Fatigue (cyclic) – Propagation of Cracks Through the Asphalt Layer
• Thermal Stresses– Very Low Temperature– Mixture Properties– Friction
= Average annual freezing index, degree F daysPrecip= Average annual precipitation or rainfall, inches
Generalized Smoothness ModelGeneralized Smoothness Model
( ) ( )( ) ( )RDTC
FCSFIRIIRI Totalo
0.400080.0400.00150.0
++++=
IRIo = Initial IRI after construction, in./mi. SF = Site factor FCTotal = Area of fatigue cracking ft2/mi TC = Length of transverse cracking ft./mi. RD = Average rut depth, inches
IRI Model CalibrationIRI Model Calibration
0
50
100
150
200
0 50 100 150 200Measured IRI, in/mi
Pred
cite
d IR
I, in
/mi
N = 1926R2 = 56 percentSEE = 18.9 in/mi
Flexible Flexible ──
Effect of Fatigue Cracking Effect of Fatigue Cracking (Wheelpath: Longitudinal & Alligator) (Wheelpath: Longitudinal & Alligator)
Initial IRI = 63 in/mi, cracking accumulated linearly over 25 years0
40
80
120
160
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fatigure Cracking, percent area
IRI,
in/m
i
ConclusionsConclusions• The MEPDG incorporated the following