Stress Rotations Due to Moving Wheel Loads and Their Effects on Pavement Materials Characterization

Transcription

1 Stress Rotations Due to Moving Wheel Loads and Their Effects on Pavement Materials Characterization Erol Tutumluer June 9, 2005 OMP Brown Bag Seminar Presentation

2 FAA Center of Excellence for Airport Technology Advanced Testing & Material Modeling University of Illinois - ATREL

3 Outline Introduction Findings from Full-Scale Field Studies Stresses In the Pavement System Field and Laboratory Stress States Moving Wheel Load Effects on Resilient Modulus Moving Wheel Load Effects on Permanent Deformation Development of rutting models Testing for Approaching and Departing Wheel Summary / Current & Future Challenges

4 Introduction Questions to Ponder!.. How different are pavements loaded under stationary or moving wheel loads? What different stress states are generated and felt by pavement layers? How close to field loading conditions do we test and characterize pavement materials? How critical is materials characterization for better/advanced pavement analysis and design?

5 Outline Introduction Findings from Full-Scale Field Studies Stresses In the Pavement System Field and Laboratory Stress States Moving Wheel Load Effects on Resilient Modulus Moving Wheel Load Effects on Permanent Deformation Development of rutting models Testing for Approaching and Departing Wheel Summary / Current & Future Challenges

6 Full-Scale Test Studies Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees (LCPC) AC Aggregate δ plate p Subgrade soil (3 ~ 4) * δ plate p δ wheel p AC (Hornych et al., 2000) Aggregate δ wheel p Subgrade soil

7 Full-Scale Test Studies University of Nottingham Test Section Asphalt Thickness (mm) Granular Thickness (mm) a b c (Brown and Brodrick, 1999) Repeated Plate Loading Moving Wheel Loading Principal Stress Rotations??

8 Full-Scale Test Studies University of Nottingham Test Section Asphalt Thickness (mm) Granular Thickness (mm) a b c (Brown and Brodrick, 1999) Unidirectional Loading Bidirectional Loading Shear stress reversals??

9 Full-Scale Test Studies 10 FAA s s National Airport Pavement Facility (NAPTF) Atlantic City, NJ, USA Compression Vertical PC Response Extension Horizontal PC DUAL GEAR TRANSVERSE OFFSET #2 TRAFFIC PATH SOUTH Extension LFS Section 10 in. Asphalt 29.6 in. P Station (X), ft

10 Full-Scale Test Studies q*= (σv-σh), psi FAA National Airport Pavement Test Facility Stress states due to 1 gear pass Dual Gear TO#1--Traffic Path North Dual Gear TO#1--Traffic Path South Dual Gear TO#2--Traffic Path North Dual Gear TO#2--Traffic Path South LFS sections Compression Extension p* = (2*σh+σv)/3, psi Gear Gear X X Sensor TO #1 Sensor TO #2

11 Full-Scale Test Studies U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Multiple-Wheel Heavy Gear Load (MWHGL) study in mid 1970s Negative q stage (extension zone) should be considered and simulated to better predict the permanent deformation!.. Richard H. Ledbetter General Deformation and Stress Distribution Theory in Soils (1977) 7)

12 Outline Introduction Findings from Full-Scale Field Studies Stresses In the Pavement System Field and Laboratory Stress States Moving Wheel Load Effects on Resilient Modulus Moving Wheel Load Effects on Permanent Deformation Development of rutting models Testing for Approaching and Departing Wheel Summary / Current & Future Challenges

13 Stresses Beneath Rolling Wheel Load Moving wheel load Vertical stress Stresses τ σ v Extension -τ x Extension Shear stress Horizontal stress σ h Time z Typical pavement element

14 Rotation of the Principal Stress Axes Beneath A Rolling Wheel Load Wheel : geo-elements elements x α : degree of principal stress axes rotation α=0 α 1 α 2 α=0 σ 1 σ 1 σ 1 σ 3 σ 3 σ 1 σ 3 σ 3 z Major Major Principal Principal Stress stress due due due to to to overburden overburden + + wheel load load Major Principal stress due to wheel load

15 Principal Stresses Rotate as the Wheel Passes Wheel Wheel Wheel Wheel x z

16 Slope of Stress Path, m σ 1d σ 1s Wheel : geo-element element σ 3s σ 3d σ 1s/3s = major/minor principal stresses due to overburden σ 1d/3d = major/minor principal stresses due to wheel load Deviator Stress q σ p 1 σ = m = q d p d p s A q s K 0 - line q d 3(1 K0) m (1 + 2K ) p d ; q = σ 1 σ Mean Normal Stress 3 p 0

17 Outline Introduction Findings from Full-Scale Field Studies Stresses In the Pavement System Field and Laboratory Stress States Moving Wheel Load Effects on Resilient Modulus Moving Wheel Load Effects on Permanent Deformation Development of rutting models Testing for Approaching and Departing Wheel Summary / Current & Future Challenges

18 Repeated Load Triaxial Test for Determining Resilient Modulus M R = σ d / ε r M R = Resilient modulus σ d = Repeated wheel load stress ε r = Recoverable strain ε p = Permanent strain Axial Strain Recoverable Strain ε r ε p = const. No. of Load Cycles

19 The Repeated Load Triaxial Test (AASHTO T307-99) C L σ 1d = σ 1 - σ 3 = Dynamic/Cyclic Deviator Stress σ 2 = σ 3 σ 3d =0 τ = 0 σ 3 τ σ 3 τ = 0 σ 3d =0 AASHTO T307-99: CCP (σ( 3d =0) p d = (σ( 1d +2σ 3d )/3 = σ 1d /3 q d = σ 1d - σ 3d = σ 1d qd p d m = = 3.0 Static/Constant Confining Pressure (CCP)

20 Stress Path Testing Variable Confining Pressure (VCP) Applied Dynamic Stresses: σ 3d σ 1d σ 3d p d = (σ( 1d +2σ 3d )/3 q d = σ 1d - σ 3d VCP: σ 3d 0 q Compression Extension Static failure failure p CCP σ 3d = 0 vertical pulsing only VCP ( σ 3d & σ 1d ) m p m = q d / p d = slope of stress path - q σ 1d = 0 horizontal pulsing only

21 Stress Path Tests & Permanent Strains q = (σ ( 1 σ 3 ) A & B m kpa Static failure failure B A C E 3 1 p = (σ ( 1 +2σ 3 )/3 (a) Stress paths D kpa F Shear strain (%) Volumetric strain (%) No. of cycles (i) Permanent shear strain B A F C D F C A D E No. of cycles (ii) Permanent volumetric strain (b) Permanent strains recorded relative to the strain state after 10 cycles E B rutting = f(shear strain) Shaw (1980)

22 Permanent Axial Strain ( (µε µε) Stress Path Tests & Permanent Strains University of Nottingham Principal Stress Direction Rotates No Rotation With Rotation Number of Load Applications

23 A B C D σ 1d σ 1d σ 1d σ 1d σ 3d σ 3d σ 3d σ 3d σ 1d 1d < σ3d σ 3d << σ1d Unload Unload Stress Paths Under Vertical stress (σ 1s + σ 1d ) Approaching and Departing Wheel (Ledbetter & NAPTF) Shear stress q Compression only Horizontal stress (σ 3s + σ 3d ) p Extension- Compression- Extension

24 Need for Research Current standard laboratory test procedures based on CCP testing, such as the AASHTO T ,, are not adequate for characterizing modulus and permanent deformation behavior because Moving wheel load conditions resulting in the rotation of principal stress directions & variable confining and deviator stresses not accounted for

25 Outline Introduction Findings from Full-Scale Field Studies Stresses In the Pavement System Field and Laboratory Stress States Moving Wheel Load Effects on Resilient Modulus Moving Wheel Load Effects on Permanent Deformation Development of rutting models Testing for Approaching and Departing Wheel Summary / Current & Future Challenges

26 FAA NAPTF Permanent Deformation Testing Program Univ. of Illinois Advanced Test Equipment: UI-FastCell Vertical LVDT 1 σ V Vertical LVDT 2 σ R Radial LVDTs Compression and Extension Stress States Constant (CCP) & Variable (VCP) Confining Stress Paths

27 Stress Path Testing Program: Tutumluer and Seyhan (1999) σ 1d or σ 3d (kpa) Dolomite p 0 = σ hydrostatic = σ 1s = σ 3s (kpa) : testing sequence number, σ 1d : compression, σ 3d : extension q Static failure failure p 0 - q CCP 1 σ 3d = 0 VCP CCP 2 σ 1d = 0 Compression σ 3d = σ 1d /4 VCP 2 VCP 3 VCP 4 σ 3d = σ 1d /2 p σ 1d = σ 3d /2 3d /2 σ 1d = σ 3d /4 Extension

28 Moduli from Compression Tests R (MPa) Resilient Modulus, M m=0.75 m=1.5 m=3.0 M R = 426 * θ Bulk Stress, θ (kpa) M Uzan et al. Model: K θ τ oct K R 1 = p p o o θ = I 1 /3 oct = [(2/3)J 2d τ oct 2 K 3 2d ] 0.5 R 2 =

29 Moduli from Extension Tests Resilient Modulus, M R (MPa) m= -0.6 m= -1.0 m= -1.5 M R = 200 * θ Bulk Stress, θ (kpa) M Uzan et al. Model: K2 K 3 θ τ oct K R 1 = p p o o θ = I 1 /3 oct = [(2/3)J 2d τ oct 2d ] 0.5 R 2 =

30 Typical Airport Pavement Analyzed Under B777 Moving Wheel Load B A: single wheel load = 189 kn = 42.5 kips 127 mm 203 mm t Subbase? AC (1380 BTB (1380 (1380 MPa,, 200 ksi) (1380 MPa,, 200 ksi) Unbound Aggregate Subbase Subgrade C L r = 220 mm = 8.6 in. ε R σ Z, ε Z (CBR = 4%, M R = 41.4 MPa = 6 ksi) q = 1255 kpa = 182 psi 5 in. 8 in. t Subbase?

31 Subbase Thicknesses from LEDFAA Runs for the B Departures Only Total Departures (20 years) h AC (cm) h BTB (cm) h SUBBASE (cm) ε t (µε) Bottom AC σ v (kpa) Top Subgrade ε v (µε) Top Subgrade Notes: 1. E AC = 1380 MPa, E BTB = 1380 MPa, E SUBGRADE = 41.4 MPa 2. - indicates compression in pavement responses

32 GT-PAVE Finite Element Mesh Linear Elastic { Nonlinear q = 1255 kpa = 182 psi 300 elements 981 nodes 12.7 cm AC 20.3 cm BTB Granular Subbase cm Nonlinear Subgrade Not in Scale

33 Stress Path Testing Program on Crushed Dolomite Aggregate σ 1d or σ 3d (kpa) p 0 = σ hydrostatic = σ 1s = σ 3s (kpa) : AASHTO testing sequence number, σ 1d : compression, σ 3d : extension q Static failure failure p 0 - q -1.5 CCP 1 σ 3d = 0 VCP 1 3=m 1.5 CCP 2 1d = 0 σ 1d Compression VCP 2 VCP 3 VCP 4 p Extension

34 Modulus Models for Crushed Dolomite Uzan et al.(1992) Model: M R = K 1 θ p o K2 K τ 3 oct p o θ = σ 1 +σ 2 +σ 3 = σ 1 +2σ τ oct = q = σ d 3 (when σ 2 = σ 3, triaxial conditions) Stress Path Loading m = 3.0 m = 1.5 m = 0.75 m = -0.6 m = -1.0 m = -1.5 Uzan Model Parameters K 1 (MPa) K 2 K 3 R

35 Performance Models from LEDFAA (FAA AC No: 150/ ) 16) Fatigue Model: ( C) = log ( ε ) log ( ) log h 10 E AC Subgrade Rutting Model: ( ) log 10 E C = 10000* SG ε v C: Number of coverages to failure E SG

36 GT-PAVE Predicted Responses/ Performances under Rolling B-777 B Wheel h SUBBASE (cm) m, stress BTB ε tensile N Sub f ε Sub vert σ vert N f path slope (µε) Fatigue, (µε) (kpa), Rutting, , ,025, , ,125, , ,444, , ,268, , ,846, , ,288,834 Notes: 1. h AC = 12.7 cm, h BTB = 20.3 cm 2. - indicates compression in pavement responses

37 Stresses Predicted within the Subbase Top Row Middle Row Bottom Row q = 1255 kpa = 182 psi 12.7 cm AC 20.3 cm BTB Granular Subbase cm σ center of elements Not in Scale Subgrade

38 Field & Laboratory Applied Stress States q = σ 1 -σ 3 (kpa) Predicted Stress States Top Base 3.0 = m = stress path slope (1) Heavy (Aircraft) Wheel Loads (2) Moving Wheel Load Conditions Airport Pavement: Boeing 777 single wheel loading Middle Base Bottom Base AASHTO T Stress-State State Sequence (2) Variable Confinement (1) Higher Magnitude p = [σ[ 1 + 2σ2 3 ]/3 (kpa)

39 Outline Introduction Findings from Full-Scale Field Studies Stresses In the Pavement System Field and Laboratory Stress States Moving Wheel Load Effects on Resilient Modulus Moving Wheel Load Effects on Permanent Deformation Development of rutting models Testing for Approaching and Departing Wheel Summary / Current & Future Challenges

40 Predicting Rutting / Permanent Deformations PRIMARY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Base/Subbase Materials and Subgrade Soils Permanent Deformation Load Repetitions Wheel Rutting!.. Permanent Deformation: δ p

41 FAA National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF), Atlantic City, NJ Low & Medium strength flexible sections (5 to 10 in. Asphalt & CBR 4 to 8 subgrade soils) failed with up to 4-in. 4 ruts Highest contribution to permanent deformations often from 8 to 30 in. thick P209 base, or 12 to 36 in. thick P154 subbase 6-wheel (B777) & 4-wheel 4 (B747) Gear Assemblies

42 NAPTF Trafficking Results (1) 5-inch P-401 P Surface 5-inch P-401 P Stabilized Base 30-inch P-209P Subbase Low-Strength Subgrade LFS Wheel Load: 45,000-lbs (20.4 metric tonnes) per wheel After 20,000 passes : 65,000-lbs (29.5 metric tonnes) per wheel (Garg,, 2003)

43 NAPTF Trafficking Results(2) 5-inch P-401 P Surface 8-inch P-209 P Base 36-inch P-154 P Subbase Low-Strength Subgrade LFC Wheel Load: 45,000-lbs (20.4 metric tonnes) per wheel After 20,000 passes : 65,000-lbs (29.5 metric tonnes) per wheel (Garg,, 2003)

44 FAA NAPTF Permanent Deformation Testing Program Univ. of Illinois Advanced Test Equipment: UI-FastCell Vertical LVDT 1 σ V Vertical LVDT 2 σ R Radial LVDTs Compression and Extension Stress States Constant (CCP) & Variable (VCP) Confining Stress Paths

45 Permanent Deformation Testing for Heavy Aircraft Wheel Loads Constant Confining Pressure (CCP) Test Program - Tests on P209 and P154 aggregates Stress Ratio σ1/σ3 = 4 CCP: σ d is pulsed only in the vertical direction!.. Stress Ratio σ1/σ3 = 6 Stress Ratio σ1/σ3 = 8 Stress Ratio σ1/σ3 = 10 σ d σ 3 σ 1 σ d σ 3 σ 1 σ d σ 3 σ 1 σ d σ 3 σ 1 (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)

46 Development of Rutting Models Based on P209 CCP test results only! Models considered ε p = A σ B 3 N C 2. ε p = A σ db N C R ε p = A (σ( d /σ 3 ) B N C ε p = A σ db σ C 3 N D A,B,C and D: Model Parameters σ d : Deviator stress σ 3 : Confining pressure N : Number of load applications Model

47 Permanent Deformation Testing for Moving Wheel Loads - Tests on P209 and P154 aggregates Variable Confining Pressure (VCP) Test Program Stress Path Slope = 1.5 Stress Path Slope = 0 Stress Path Slope = -1 σ 3 (psi) Compression σ 1d (psi) σ 3d (psi) σ 3 (psi) σ 1d (psi) σ 3d (psi) σ 3 (psi) Extension σ 1d (psi) σ 3d (psi)

48 Permanent Deformation Testing for Moving Wheel Loads Deviator Stress, q Stress Path Slope = m Stress Path Length = L Or should know: VCP Tests q max q min L 1 m Pulsed horizontal stress, σ 3d Pulsed vertical stress, σ 1d p min p max Mean Normal Stress, p

49 Development of Rutting Models Based on both P209 and P154 VCP test results! Model 1 ε p = a σ b s N c Model 2 ε p b c = a σ s σ 1d N d σ s : Static confining pressure σ 1d : Vertical dynamic stress Model 3 Model 4 ε ε p p b c = a σ s σ 3d N b c d = a σ s σ 1 d σ 3d d N e σ 3d : Horizontal dynamic stress L: Stress path length m: Stress path slope a, b, c, d, & e: regression Model 5 ε p = a σ b s L c N d parameters Model 6 Model 7 ε ε p p b c d a s N ( 1+ ) m = σ 1 10 b c d e a s L N ( 1+ ) m = σ 1 10

50 Rutting Model Performances (CCP+VCP data) Model No. R 2 Values for All data R 2 Values for Stress Path Slope (m) (CCP) P209 FAA Base Material Model 7 includes stress path slope m P154 FAA Subbase Material Models 7 includes stress path slope m

51 Outline Introduction Findings from Full-Scale Field Studies Stresses In the Pavement System Field and Laboratory Stress States Moving Wheel Load Effects on Resilient Modulus Moving Wheel Load Effects on Permanent Deformation Development of rutting models Testing for Approaching and Departing Wheel Summary / Current & Future Challenges

52 Stress Paths Under Approaching and Departing Wheel Loads q*= (σv-σh), psi FAA National Airport Pavement Test Facility Stress states due to 1 gear pass Dual Gear TO#1--Traffic Path North Dual Gear TO#1--Traffic Path South Dual Gear TO#2--Traffic Path North Dual Gear TO#2--Traffic Path South LFS sections Compression Extension p* = (2*σh+σv)/3, psi Gear Gear X X Sensor TO #1 Sensor TO #2

53 Permanent Deformation Testing for Approaching and Departing Wheel Tests Considering Actual Rolling Wheel Stress Path Stress History Effects Included q= (σ( 1 -σ 3 ) According to stress path order, each cycle switch to next one Path 1 Path 4 Path 3 Path 2 p= (2*σ 3 +σ 1 )/3 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 4 th 5 th 6 th 7 th st cycle : Path 1 nd cycle : Path 2 rd cycle : Path 3 th cycle : Path 4 th cycle : Path 1 th cycle : Path 2 th cycle : Path

54 Multiple Path Test Program A B C D σ 1d σ 1d σ 1d σ 1d σ 3d σ 3d σ 3d σ 3d σ 1d 1d < σ3d σ 3d << σ1d Unload Unload Stress States for Multiple Path Test (psi) q-p p States for Multiple Path Test (psi) Part σ 1s σ 3s σ 1d σ 3d Slope Part p min q min p max q max A B C D Vertical stress (σ 1s + σ 1d ) A B C D q Shear stress z Horizontal stress (σ 3s + σ 3d ) q Single path test D A B C p p Multiple path test

55 Multiple Path Test Program Experimental Program Summary Materials Test Type Compaction Level AASHTO T-180T P209 (Base) Single Path Multiple Path Single Path 100% 100% 100% 95% 90% Number of Load Repetitions: 40,000 P154 (Subbase) Multiple Path 85% 100% 95% 90% 85% Total 10 tests performed

56 Multiple Path Test Program Test Results P209 Permanent Vertical Strain, % Single Path 0.7 Multi Path No. of Load Repetitions Both the volumetric and deviatoric strains of the multiple stress path tests consistently higher than the ones from the single path test Moving wheel load effect is properly accounted for in laboratory testing Permanent Deviatoric Strain, % Single Path Multi Path No. of Load Repetitions Permanent Volumetric Strain, % Single Path Multi Path No. of Load Repetitions

57 Most Moving Wheel Damage - Multiple Path Testing q Laboratory Test Results (moving wheel load simulation) Largest deformations accumulate with approaching wheel D A B C p Vertical Strain, % C D Contractive & Dilative Behavior 0.1 B 0 A No. of Load Repetitions

58 Multiple Path Test Program Test Results P154 Permanent Vertical Strain, % Compaction Level Permanent Strain No. of Load Repetitions 100% multi path 100% single path 95% multi path 95% single path 90% multi path 90% single path 85% multi path 85% single path Permanent Deviatoric Strain,% No. of Load Repetitions The permanent strains rapidly increased with a decrease in the degree of compaction

59 Multiple Path Test Program Test Results P154 Multiple stress path tests gave much higher volumetric & deviatoric permanent strains than the single path tests Permanent Volumetric Strain,% No. of Load Repetitions Related FAA NAPTF Observation 100% multi path 100% single path 95% multi path 95% single path 90% multi path 90% single path 85% multi path 85% single path Increased amounts of shearing and continuous horizontal movement or heave of pavement materials in the transverse direction to traffic when the aircraft gear loading was applied with a wander pattern!..

60 Multiple Path Test Program Test Results P Dry Density, kn/m 3 Single Path Multi Path 0 Compaction affecting the rate at which the strains accumulate in the multiple path tests Compaction Compaction affecting affecting the rate at which the strains strains accumulate accumulate in the single path tests Permanent Volumetric N = 10,000, % Permanent Volumetric N = 10,000, % Multiple path tests indicated much higher impact of compaction on permanent deformation accumulation

61 Multiple Path Test Program Test Results P154 Deviatoric N = 10,000, % Dry Density, kn/m3 Single Path Multi Path Multiple path tests (much higher impact of compaction) Findings: High shear or deviatoric strains commonly linked to excessive rutting type shear failures Multiple stress path loading or moving wheel loads can cause significantly higher permanent deformations or damage in the loose base/subbase layers Supported by: By applying to the pavement element shear stress reversals through extension and compression loading, up to 3 times higher permanent deformations can accumulate when compared to those obtained from plate loading (French LCPC: Hornych et al., 2000)

62 Summary For a given pavement element, principal stress axes rotate as the wheel load moves away In pavement layers, stress states & hence stress path slopes (m) vary depending on the varying magnitudes of the applied dynamic stresses Lacking the ability to pulse in the horizontal direction, the AASHTO T test procedure can only conduct tests under m=3.0

63 Summary Former research indicates higher permanent shear strains and therefore more rutting may occur under stress path slopes other than CCP m = 3.0 Advanced stress path tests can take into account the effects of actual moving wheel loads & VCP conditions for a better simulation and characterization of pavement material behavior

64 Summary Modulus and permanent deformation models that analyze simultaneously the static and dynamic components of the applied stresses or the stress path length and slope of dynamic loading produced a high degree of accuracy Both compression and extension type loadings occur under rolling wheel loads. Extension loading due to moving wheel load effects may cause a reduction in modulus

65 Summary Two different test procedures, single stress path and multiple stress path,, were studied in the laboratory to simulate applied stress states due to stationary and moving (approaching and departing) wheel load conditions, respectively The permanent strains (volumetric and deviatoric or shear) obtained from the multiple stress path tests were consistently higher than those from the single path tests

66 Conclusion Pavement material characterization models should consider the effects of rotating extension- compression-extension extension type field stress states and shear stress reversals that take place under moving wheel loads (VCP testing) Further considerations or challenges include

67 Current & Future Challenges NAPTF Trafficking Data Sensor Time History Stress History Effects Pavement Response Direction of Aircraft Movement Max Response Rebound Response End Response Residual Response Initial Response Time (sec)

68 Current & Future Challenges NAPTF Trafficking Data Base / Subbase Contractive & Dilative Behavior

69 Current & Future Challenges NAPTF Trafficking Data Residual Permanent Deformations After Wheel Pass East Direction Traffic First West Direction Traffic Later Traffic Direction (Stress History) Effect

70 Current & Future Challenges NAPTF Trafficking Data Load path (stress history) effect