Considering multiple-axle group loads in mechanistic design of bound pavements Michael Moffatt.

Post on 18-Dec-2015

215 views 0 download

Tags:

Transcript of Considering multiple-axle group loads in mechanistic design of bound pavements Michael Moffatt.

Considering multiple-axle group loads in mechanistic design of bound pavements

Michael Moffatt

Source: Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, South Australia

80 kN

Standard Axle

equivalent Standard Axle Repetitions

Axle type Standard group load [kN]

single axle – single tyres 53

single axle – dual tyres 80

tandem – dual tyres 135

triaxle – dual tyres 181

quad-axle – dual tyres 221

Failure mechanism LDE

asphalt fatigue 5

cemented material fatigue 12

total deformation 7

Fatigue testing

flexural fatigue testingusing trapezoidal beam

displacement controlduring testing

no rest periods

simulated axles had equal peaks

8

Simplified Homsi model

non-linear elastic support materials

localised stress/modulus states

superpositioning of responses

3D FEM

Asphalt

Crushed rock

Subgrade

Pavement structures

1000 MPa 3000 MPa5000 MPa

High quality crushed rockLower subbase

Highly plastic clay (CBR 3%)Sand (CBR 15%)

50 100 200 300 mm

200 400 600 mm

Fatigue models

Austroads

Simplified Homsi

Maximum peaks

Damage models

Summed peaks

Maximum peaks

Layered linear-elastic analysessimilar

• Equating damage by strain (+ superposition) varies withpavement structure

• thicknesses

• modulus

• Single load equivalency values unsuitable

• Model traffic spectrum, and assign damage to each combination of axle group and load

• same as for concrete design

Implementation in the guide

Design processAustroadstraffic load distribution + HVAG count

SAR5

Model candidate structure with Standard Axle

Allowable loading cf. SAR5

Summed peakstraffic load distribution + HVAG count

Model candidate structure with axle types/loads in TDL

Sum damage (want ≤ 100 %)

Austroads Summed peaks

Cemented materials fatigue

pulse width rest

250 ms250 ms

(a) Haversine

(b) Single axle

(c) tandem

(d) tri-axle

(e) quad-axle

• conclude that relative damage is the same as number of axles in group

• same procedure as for asphalt

FindingsGroup damage relative to single axle

Groups Relative damage

2 2.4

3 2.8

4.1

Design example

1 x 108 HVAG

Asphalt

Crushed rock

Subgrade

Candidate structure

3000 MPa

CBR 7 %

340 mm

300 mm

Reference load: 53 kN

XX YY

60.3 54.4

Reference load: 135 kN

XX YY

58.2 43.0XX YY

60.7 44.2

XX YY

58.2 43.0XX YY

60.7 44.2

Further information

Seek me out today.

26th ARRB Conference paper.

www.arrb.com.au/ARRB-

Conferences

Research Report for Austroads in press.

PhD thesis in pre-pre-press.Thank youwww.arrb.com.au