See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/255609583

Flexible Pavements Dynamic Response under a Moving Wheel

Article

CITATIONS READS

0 88

1 author:

Javier Pérez Ayuso

Centro de Estudios y Experimentación de Obras Públicas
12 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Javier Pérez Ayuso on 05 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Flexible Pavements Dynamic Response under a Moving Wheel

Angel Mateos, Ph.D. 1, Pablo de la Fuente Martín Ph.D. P.E. 2

and Javier Perez Ayuso 1

This paper presents the results from a research study carried out in order to better understand the
mechanic behavior of a pavement under the traffic loads.

Experimental data comes from CEDEX Test Track, an outdoors research facility located to the north of
Madrid. CEDEX is a Public Institution, attached to the Ministry for Public Works, that provide technical
support and research in the different areas of the Civil Engineering.

CEDEX facility can test six full-scale sections simultaneously; the load is applied by means of two
automatic vehicles that continuously move along a 300 meters close track.

Six full-depth sections were tested, consisting of a 150 mm asphalt concrete layer on different quality
subgrades. The structural response was measured in terms of deflection, asphalt horizontal strains
and vertical stresses and strains in granular layers, for different conditions of speed and temperature.
A comprehensive in-situ testing and laboratory characterization were conducted as well.

This research considers the different aspects of the pavement mechanic, like non-linearity of soils,
wheel-asphalt contact surface modeling, border effects etc. and special emphasis were placed on the
dynamic effects.

As a result a model is proposed, and developed with ABAQUS finite element program. Pavement is
modeled as a multilayer three-dimensional structure. The vehicle load is modeled as a loaded surface
with variable position, and the problem is solved through a pseudo-dynamic analysis which does not
take into account inertia forces (since these were found to be negligible for the typical range of traffic
speed), but it does consider the frequency dependence of the mechanical properties of the asphalt
mix.

Numeric modeling predictions have been compared to actual response measured in the test track
sections. This comparison shows the ability of the model to reproduce the fundamental aspects of the
structural response of a flexible pavement.

1
Transport Research Center of CEDEX. Autovia de Colmenar Viejo, km 18.2, El Goloso, 28760
Madrid, Spain. email: amateos@cedex.es
2
Department of Mechanic of Continuous Media and Structures Theory, Technical University of
Madrid. C/ Ramiro de Maeztu 7, 28040 Madrid, Spain. email: pdelaf@caminos.upm.es
INTRODUCTION
The CEDEX Test Track consists of two 75-m straight stretches joined by two circular curves with a
radius of 25 m. A rail beam located on the inside perimeter of the track serves as a guide for two
automatic vehicles.

Figure 1. CEDEX Test Track

The testing of the pavement sections is carried out in the straight stretches, and therefore the results
are comparable to those obtained in other linear test tracks. Six 20-25 m long complete pavement
sections can be tested simultaneously.

Figure 2. Sketch of the Tested Sections

A concrete test pit, 2.6 m deep and 8 m wide, enable the building of embankments of at least 1.25 m
in height as well as the use of conventional machinery and the usual road-building procedures. The
purpose of using concrete test pits is to isolate the performance of the pavements from that of the
surrounding ground, allowing homogeneous support to the pavements throughout each test and
between different tests in such a way that the results are comparable. It also allows the subgrade to
be flooded for testing under different groundwater conditions.

Figure 3. Test Pit

Loading is applied by means of two automatic vehicles running up to 60 km/h. The concrete rail beam
located on the inside perimeter of the track serves as a guide and enables total control of the load
path.

Figure 4. Vehicle for Traffic Simulation

Results presented in this paper come from a test carried out in order to evaluate the performance of
different subgrades, and only the structural response measurements are used. Measurements were
taken at the beginning of the test, when the structural deterioration of the sections was negligible.
The range of temperature and load-related variables is listed below:

− Asphalt Temperature: 5-30 ºC

− Speed: 35 km/h
(additional tests were carried out to evaluate speed effect between 10 and 35 km/h for an
asphalt temperature of 20 ºC approximately)
− Load: 65.7 kN
− Tire pressure: 785 kPa
− Twin wheels
TESTED PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Six different alternatives for a high quality subgrade were tested. Section 1 was the reference section,
as it was included in the Spanish Design Catalog. Three groups of alternatives were considered:

Section 3, were the capping layer was substituted by a high quality cement-stabilized soil.

Sections 4, 5 and 6, were an improved support was added under the capping layer.

Section 2, were the capping layer was substituted by other granular materials.

In terms of bearing capacity, only Section 3 significantly improved the reference one (Section 1). For
the other 4 solutions, the bearing capacity was very similar to the reference one.

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3

Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Concrete
150 150 150

Soil S3 250 Natural Granular 200 Cement Stab. Soil (5%)

500
250 Soil S1 300 Soil S1

Soil S0 Soil S0 Soil S0

1300 1300 1300

Concrete Text Pit Concrete Text Pit Concrete Text Pit

Section 4 Section 5 Section 6

Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Concrete
150 150 150

Soil S3 Soil S3 Soil S3

500 500 500

geotextile

Soil S1 Lime Stab. Soil (3%) Soil S0

200
500
Soil S0

1300
Soil S0
1100
800

Concrete Text Pit Concrete Text Pit Concrete Text Pit

Layer Thickness in mm
(values correspond to design thickness; actual measured thickness was used for modeling)

Figure 5. Tested Sections

Soils are classified, according to the Spanish Catalogue, into 4 categories; Atterberg limits,
granulometry, CBR, harmful materials contents etc. are established for each type of soil. The number
indicates a relative quality, being the soil S3 the best and the soil S0 the worse.
INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA COLLECTION
Sections were instrumented with sensors in order to measure the structural response under the
moving loads of the traffic simulator vehicles. The following variables were measured:

− Deflection
− Horizontal strain at the bottom of the asphalt layers
− Vertical stresses in soils at different levels
− Vertical strain in soils at the top of the subgrades

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3

δ δ δ

AC εl εt AC εl εt AC εl εt

σv ZN S-EST 3
εv
S3
σv σv
S1 εv S1 εv

σv σv σv

(to the concrete pit) (to the concrete pit) (to the concrete pit)

Section 4 Section 5 Section 6

δ δ δ

AC εl εt AC εl εt AC εl εt

σv σv σv
εv εv εv
S3 S3 S3

S-EST 1 σv
S1
σv
(to the concrete pit)
σv

(to the concrete pit) (to the concrete pit)

LVDT sensor for Defection

Strain gages for the horizontal strain in asphalt

(longitudinal y transversal)

Pressure cell

LVDT sensor for vertical strain

Figure 6. Instrumentation of the Sections

Data was collected by means of a specially design software that allowed the acquisition and treatment
of more than 250000 registers through the complete test. A complete register is recorded for each
sensor under the pass of the traffic simulator vehicles, and the peak response value was calculated
from that. The peak values could be plotted versus temperature or speed, as shown in Figures 8 and
9.

Twin wheels Section 2

(65.7 kN)
- longitudinal strain - v = 35 km/h
(asphalt mix) T: 15 ºC

200
µε)

150
Longitudinal Strain (µε

Sensor
100

εlong 22KL22
50

-50
-4000 -2000 0 2000 4000

Longitudinal Position (mm)

Figure 7. Example of a Longitudinal Strain Record

Twin wheels
(65.7 kN)
Section 1
v = 35 km/h
- deflection -

60.0

50.0
Deflection (mm/100)

40.0
Sensors

11DF01
30.0
12DF01

20.0

10.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature of the Asphalt Mix (ºC)

Figure 8. Example of Deflection Evolution versus Temperature

 Twin Wheels
Section 1
(65.7 kN) T: 15-20 ºC
- deflection -

60.0

50.0
Deflection (mm/100)

40.0
Sensors

11DF01
30.0
12DF01

20.0

10.0

0.0
0 10 20 30 40

Speed (km/h)

Figure 9. Example of Deflection Evolution versus Speed

The automatic data management system allowed the acquisition of a large number of measurements.
Several hundreds records were registered for each sensor at the regular test speed of 35 km/h; that
allowed the accurate definition of its response. Consequently, the variability of the response of each
sensor did not mean a problem, since it was overcome with a large number of measurements. It can
be seen in Figure 10 that the confidence interval for the true response of the sensor is very narrow
(e.g. ±0.2 mm/100 for the deflection at 20 ºC).

But the variability from one sensor to another was significant, and it could not be overcome with a
large number of sensors; usually, only two sensors were available for each variable in one section. It
can be seen in Figure 10 how the variability from one sensor to another throws a significant
uncertainty on the true value for the section. In terms of deflection, for example, the confidence
interval for the true value is relatively wide: ±10.5 mm/100.

So, for each response variable, the sections were classified into different groups, and the mean value
for the group was calculated. That helped reducing significantly the margin of error. The mean value
for the group was used for the evaluation of the model, but previously, it was verified that the model
resulted in the same grouping as the measured variables.
Twin Wheels
(65.7 kN)
Deflection
v = 35 km/h
- Section 6 -

80.0
Curve fit for each sensor

70.0 95% confidence interval for the sensor true response

95% confidence interval for the mean response of the section
Deflection (mm/100)

60.0
Sensors
50.0
61DF01
40.0 62DF01
mean
30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature of the Mix (ºC)

Figure 10. Margin of Error for Deflection in Section 6

MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
Soils

Soils were evaluated during the construction, after the placement of each layer. A falling weight
deflectometer test series was carried out for different load levels. Soils showed an stress dependent
behavior as expected, with the stiffness increasing for low levels of load.

FWD tests were performed

Equivalent Modulus on the top of each layer
- central deflection (D0) - after the construction

180

160

140
Modulus (MPa)

120
mean Soil S0
100
mean Soil S1
mean Soil S3
80
Natural Granular Soil
60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Applied Load (kN)

Figure 11. Modulus from the FWD Test for Different Load Levels

Nonetheless, the series of FWD tests performed after the construction, on the asphalt layer, showed a
behavior that did not separate significantly from the linearity, as can be seen in Figure 13. All the
sections performed the same in this sense.

Section 2 Load Level Effect

- Falling Weight Deflectometer -

500

400
Deflection (µm)

D0
300
D200
D300
200 D450
D900

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

FWD Load (kN)

Figure 12. Linear Response under the FWD Load

Soils moduli were finally obtained by means of FWD backcalculation from tests performed on the
asphalt layer, after the construction of the sections. Values are included in Table 1, and they
correspond with the values that would be expected from the layer testing with FWD during the
construction.

Table 1. FWD Backcalculated Moduli

Soil S3 120 MPa
Cement Stabilized Soil S-EST 3 2000 MPa
Natural Granular Soil 210 MPa
Lime Stabilized Soil S-EST 1 1500 MPa
Soil S1 75 MPa
Soil S0 110 MPa

Asphalt Mix

Frequency dependency of the asphalt mixture is usually considered by means of the complex modulus
or the creep compliance. Both were estimated in the laboratory from 18 cores extracted from the
pavements.

In the creep compliance test, a step load is applied to the core and the deformation is measured as a
function of time. The interpretation of the creep compliance is as follows:

If the applied stress is : σ = σ 0 ; t≥0

and the measured strain : ε = ε(t )
ε (t )
the Creep Compliance is : D(t ) =
σ0

Applied Load

H0
H0

time
ε(t)
Measured strain

ε(t)

delayed strain

ε0 (instantaneous stain)

time

Figure 13. Creep Compliance Test

Applying a step load is very complicated, and in practice, there will be always a short period of time or
ramp before the load gets constant, as can be seen in Figure 14. The quasi-elastic approximation is
applied, and the creep compliance is calculated from:

ε(t )
D(t ) =
σ(t )

5.0

4.0

3.0

Actual Applied Load

kN

Theoretical Step Load

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500 0.550
time (s)

Figure 14. Actual Step Load

Tests were carried out under the following conditions:

- Temperature (3 levels): 10 / 20 / 30 ºC
- Reference (zero) load: 0.25 kN (σ = 32 kPa)
- Step load: 10 ºC → 4.0 kN (σ = 509 kPa)
20 ºC → 4.0 kN (σ = 509 kPa)
30 ºC → 2.0 kN (σ = 255 kPa)
n
An explicit creep function was used: D(t) = D0 + D1·t , and results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Results from Creep Compliance Tests

Parameter
Temperature D0 D1 n
mean 57.5 124 0.331
10 ºC Std. Error 20.4 30.4 0.060
C.I. (95 %) [47.0 ; 68.0] [108 ; 139] [0.300 ; 0.362]
mean 74.5 367 0.425
20 ºC Std. Error 16.6 76.9 0.034
C.I. (95 %) [66.2 ; 82.7] [328 ; 405] [0.408 ; 0.442]
mean 164.7 1365 0.526
30 ºC Std. Error 40.2 294.0 0.021
C.I. (95 %) [144.0 ; 185.3] [1214 ; 1516] [0.516 ; 0.537]
Complex modulus tests were also carried out on the same cores, and values were compared to those
obtained from the creep test. The creep compliance defines the frequency dependent behavior of the
mix, and the complex modulus can be obtained from it, by using the following relation:

1
E* (ω) =
D* (ω)

where D*(ω) is the Laplace transformation of D(t).

The comparison from both tests shows similar results (in relative terms) for the high frequencies, but
for the low frequencies the stiffness is higher from the complex modulus test. It must be considered
that for the very low frequency of 0.1 Hz the contribution of the aggregate interlock can be significant,
and the cores were subjected to a higher deformation during the complex modulus test.

Dynamic Modulus Tª: 20 ºC

12000

10000

8000
|E*| (MPa)

Complex Modulus Test

6000
Creep Test

4000

2000

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 15. Comparison between Creep Test and Complex Modulus Test

Time-temperature superposition principle was verified for the mix, and a relation on the following form
was assumed:

log(a T ) = − β (T − T0 )

where aT is the time scale and β depends on the mix type.

The β value was obtained from the creep compliance functions obtained in the laboratory for 10, 20
and 30 ºC, as can be seen in Figure 16.
 Superposition time-Temperature

600
Corrected cruve by means of a
compression in time scale
500
β = 0.124

400
Error:
µε/MPa)

ε = 7.4 % 10 ºC
D(t) (µε

300 20 ºC
30 ºC
β = 0.137
200
ε = 1.0 %
100

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
time (s)

Figure 16. Comparison between Creep Test and Complex Modulus Test
MODELING
ABAQUS finite element program was used for the modeling. A series of initial considerations was
necessary in order to adequately model the problem.

Dynamic Nature of the Problem

The structural response of a flexible pavement under the pass of a moving wheel falls directly into the
dynamic of structures. The dynamic nature of the problem clearly shows up when observing two
phenomena:

Increase in the structural response when the vehicle speed decreases (e.g. Figure 17).

Longitudinal asymmetry of the registered signals under the moving wheel (e.g. Figure 18).

Both aspects have been widely described in the literature and mainly attributed to the time-dependent
mechanical properties of asphalt mix. Nonetheless, whether or not the inertial forces are significant in
this problem is an issue that requires further considerations.

Twin Wheels Section 1

(65.7 kN)
- vertical stress - T: 15-20 ºC
(soil S3)

0.20
Vertical Stress (MPa)

0.15

Sensors

11CT31
0.10
12CT31

0.05

0.00
0 10 20 30 40
Speed (km/h)

Figure 17. Example of Speed Effect on Pavement Response

Twin wheels
Section 1
(65.7 kN) v = 35 km/h
- vertical stress -
T: 15 ºC
(soil S3)

0.15
Vertical Stress (MPa)

0.10

0.05

0.00

-0.05
-4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
Longitudinal Position of the Vehicle (mm)

Figure 18. Longitudinal Asymmetry of the Structural Response

Linearity of the Response

Linearity of the response was observed from the FWD tests conducted at different load levels, from
12.5 kN to 70 kN, as previously shown in Figure 12 for Section 2. The same pattern was observed for
all the sections: the deflections (under the load plate and at certain distances up to 900 mm) increased
linearly with the load level.

Creep compliance tests at different load levels were also performed on 18 cores extracted from the
pavements. This comparison was carried out for 20ºC, and the results show that the response of the
mix was almost linear for this range of load.

Creep Compliance T: 20 ºC

500

400

300 Load applied on Cores

µε/ MPa

2 kN (255 kPa)
4 kN (509 kPa)
200

100

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
time (s)

Figure 19. Effect of Load Level on Creep Compliance

Geometry of the Problem

The pavement sections were built in a concrete test pit, so they are horizontally confined to the walls
of the test pit, as shown in Figure 20. In order to evaluate the effect of the horizontal confinement at
3.3 meters, a multilayer linear elastic calculation was carried out with Bisar.

A representative section was modeled and the structural response was calculated for different depth
levels. Some of the results are shown in Figure 21, and it can be noted that the structural response is
negligible for distances farther than 2 meters. In terms of modeling, this means that a conventional
multilayer linear elastic program, where infinite horizontal extension is assumed, could be used for the
Test Track sections. In terms of finite element modeling, this means that the boundary of the modeled
space should be 2 meters far from the load.

The dimensions of the modeled space are shown in Figure 22. This figure also shows the symmetry
plane located between both tires of the twin wheels, where the displacements in the perpendicular
direction are restricted. For the bottom plane, all movements are restricted an for the vertical plane,
the horizontal displacements were restricted.
 3300 mm

8000 mm

2000 mm

Figure 20. Distance between the Wheel Load and the Concrete Wall

Level 1
Deflection (Suface) Vertical Stress
50 0.02

40 0.00

30 -0.02
δ (mm/100)

σ V (MPa)

Level 4
20 -0.04

10 -0.06

Level 3: Top of the Subgrade

0 -0.08
Level 4: Top of the Embankment
Level 3

-10 -0.10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Distance to the Load (mm) Distance to the Load (mm)

Figure 21. Attenuation of the Structural Response with Horizontal Distance

Tire Print z

Asphalt y
Concrete

Subgrade
e
l an
P
e try 0
ymm x =
S

Concrete
Test Pit
2 meters

4 meters

Figure 22. Modeled Geometric Space

Element Meshing

Figure 23 shows the meshing for Section 1. Similar ones were used for the rest of the sections. The
main characteristic of this mesh are listed below:

- Type of element: linear isoperimetric tetrahedron (C3D8I; ABAQUS denomination)

- Nº Elements: 14400
- Nº nodes: 16359
- Nº degrees of freedom: · total: 49077 (3 d.o.f. per node)
· restricted in boundary: - 6201
d.o.f. 42876

C3D8I is a linear element with internal modes of deformation, that improves the performance of linear
elements almost to a quadratic level and eliminates the shear locking effect, with reduced computation
requirements.

The mesh was validated by comparison with the results from Bisar for a static linear elastic problem.

Figure 23. Finite Element Meshing

Load of the Vehicles

Wheel load was modeled by circular areas with constant vertical stress (735 kPa). The tire-pavement
mean contact stress was obtained from actual measured tires imprints, and it resulted slightly lower
than actual tire air pressure, that was 785 kPa.

Axel loads are known to vary around the death weight due to the irregularities of the pavement and the
effect of the suspension. This variation can be significant, and values up to ±20% have been reported
for normal traffic speed on pavements in good conditions. In this case, the speed was relatively low,
35 km/h, so this fluctuation was expected to be lower; besides, the structural measurements were
considered at the beginning of the test, when the pavement surfaces were in good condition. The
variation around the dead weight was estimated by accelerometers, and values below ±5% were
obtained. So, the magnitude of the load was assumed to be constant.
The position of the load, though, does vary along the pavement, and the modeling can result
cumbersome, since nodal forces change as the load moves. In order to simplify this modeling, the
surface contact utility from ABAQUS was used.

Tire load was modeled by a circular area with a constant vertical stress applied on it. The area is
“placed” on the pavement surface, that is considered to be the master surface. Then, a movement is
imposed to the tire area, resulting in a constant stress circular surface moving along the pavement.

Figure 24. Tire Load Modeling

Y’ = +1.5 m

Tire Movement

Y’ = 0

Tire Load

Y’ = -1.5 m
St
dif ruct
fer ura
en l r
t d es
ep po
ths ns
e ca
lcu
lat
ion
at

Figure 25. Movement of Tire Load

In the real pavement, the initial conditions of the system are different from zero; wheel load is
approaching, so when it gets to Y=-1.5, a primary response exists. If the load were applied directly
from Y=-1,5 in a dynamic analysis, an oscillation in the vertical movement would be introduced, and it
would disturb the calculated response. In order to get rid from that, an initial step was introduced
where the load was applied in a static analysis.
Consequently, analysis was carried out in three steps:

Step 1: applied load (static analysis)

Step 2: constant acceleration, in order to reach 35 km/h (from Y=-1.5 to Y=-1)

Step 3: constant speed from Y=-1 to Y=+1.5 meters

Viscoelasticity of the Asphalt Mix

Viscoelastic nature of the asphalt mix is more related to the deformation rather than to the
compressibility. In fact, it has been frequently assumed for modeling a constant bulk modulus K and a
frequency-dependent shear modulus G.

Only the E modulus (or the Creep Compliance) was measured in the laboratory tests, but not the
Poisson ratio. So, an assumption had to be made for the instantaneous Poisson ratio, based on
literature reference values: υ0 = 0.15.

Once this value has been estimated, and assuming an elastic K, the creep function for the shear
modulus can be estimated from the creep function for the elastic modulus.

Normalized Creep Functions

8.0
Normalized Dγγ(t)
(Shear Modulus, G)

6.0

Normalized D(t)
(elastic modulus, E)
4.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
time (s)

Figure 26. Normalized Creep Functions

Type of Analysis

The asphalt mix mechanical stiffness strongly depends on the frequency of the load, and this
dependency makes the flexible pavement response increases when the vehicle speed decreases and
also makes the signal registered under a moving wheel to be asymmetric. Both aspects have been
frequently described in the literature as well as observed for the six sections considered in this study.

But it is not clear whether or not the inertial forces must be considered or could be neglected in the
analysis. In order to assess this inertial forces effect, a pavement section representing Section 1 was
modeled with ABAQUS and an elastic material was used for the asphalt layer. Two types of analysis
were carried out:

Pseudo-dynamic. Inertial forces are not considered.

Dynamic; 35 km/h. Inertial forces as well as damping are considered (a 5% artificial damping
was assumed).

The response was calculated in both cases for the different variables considered in this study:
deflection, horizontal strain in the asphalt layer and vertical stresses and strains in soils at different
depth levels. In all cases the results were the same: there is no difference between both analysis,
which means the inertial forces are negligible for this type of pavement for a speed of 35 km/h. An
example is shown in Figure 27.

Twin ABAQUS
Wheels
Longitudinal Strain
Modeling
- Asphalt Mix - T: 20ºC

250

200

150
ε L (µε)

Pseudo-dynamic
100
Dynamic (35 km/h)

50

-50
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Longitudinal Position (m)

Figure 27. Pseudo-dynamic versus Dynamic (Section 1)

Consequently, a pseudo-dynamic analysis was carried out, that does not take into account the inertial
forces but it does consider the time-dependency of the mechanical properties of the asphalt mix.

Dynamic Effects for High Speeds

The speed of 35 km/h is relatively low when compared to typical traffic speed. So the later comparison
was extended to a much higher range of velocities. The results are shown in Figure 28 for the different
response variables.

It can be observed that the dynamic amplification is negligible for the typical traffic speeds, even for
the highest speed trucks can reach on roads.

It must be bear in mind that the calculations were performed for Section 1, but it seems clear that the
results can be extrapolated to most typical road pavements, so a pseudo-dynamic analysis can be
used to model the structural response of a flexible pavement under a moving wheel, even for the
highest speeds that can be reached on roads.

It was considered appropriated, though, to evaluate the effect of the concrete rigid layer under the
pavement (due to the test pit), so the same exercise was carried out without this layer, assuming a
semi-infinite embankment. This was modeled by using infinite elements in ABAQUS, whose shape
functions set to zero in a theoretical boundary that is placed at infinite depth. Results are presented in
Figure 29, and are quite similar to the previous results.

Twin ABAQUS
Wheels Speed Effect Modeling
T: 20ºC
130%
360 km/h
Dynamic Response / Static Response

120%

110% 240

180
120
35 60 Deflection
100% Longitudinal Strain
Transverse Strain
Vertical Stress (top subgrade)
90% Vertical Strain (top subgrade)
Vertical Stress (top embankment)
Vertical Strain (top embankment)
80%

70%

60%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Speed (km/h)

Pavement with a Rigid Bottom Layer (Concrete Test Pit)

Figure 28. Dynamic Amplification of the Structural Response (Section 1)

Twin ABAQUS
Wheels Speed Effect Modeling
T: 20ºC
140%
Dynamic Response / Static Response

130%

360 km/h
120%
Deflection
110% 240
Longitudinal Strain
180
35 60
120 Transverse Strain
100% Vertical Stress (top subgrade)
Vertical Strain (top subgrade)
90% Vertical Stress (top embankment)
Vertical Strain (top embankment)
80%

70%

60%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Velocidad (km/h)
Pavement with a Semi-infinite Embankment

Figure 29. Dynamic Amplification of the Structural Response (Section 1; with a semi-
infinite embankment)
MODEL EVALUATION
Next Figures show the comparison between the measured response in the Test Track and the results
from ABAQUS modeling.

It must be bear in mind that the sections were classified into groups according to the measured
response, and a confidence interval was calculated for the mean response of each group; that
reduced significantly the margin of error.

It must be also bear in mind that ABAQUS material parameters were estimated from FWD testing in
the case of the soils and from laboratory testing in the case of the asphalt mix. A rational procedure
was established for determining those parameters, so no readjustment was allowed in order to fit the
measured response.

The variables considered for the comparison are listed below:

Deflection.

Longitudinal strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer.

Vertical stress at the top of the subgrade.

Vertical strain at the top of the subgrade.

Vertical stress at the top of the embankment.

Sections Deflection v = 35 km/h

1, 5 and 6
70
95% Confidence Interval
for the mean response 61.4
60
53.3
50
46.4
δ (mm/100)

46.2
40 40.8
36.5
33.4 36.4
30
31.2

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Temperature of the Asphalt Mix (ºC)
Measured Response ABAQUS Modeling

Figure 30. Model Evaluation ~ Deflection

 Section 3 Deflection v = 35 km/h

40
95% Confidence Interval
35 for the mean response

30 29.6
δ (mm/100)

25 25.4

22.1
20 22.3
19.6
17.9
17.0 18.3
15 16.4

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Temperature of the Asphalt Mix (ºC)
Measured Response ABAQUS Modeling

Figure 31. Model Evaluation ~ Deflection (Section with cement-stabilized soil)

Sections Longitudinal Strain

1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 v = 35 km/h
- Bottom of Asphalt Mix -

600
95% Confidence Interval
for the mean response
500

400 389.5
εL (µε)

310.6
300
308.0
245.8

200 195.0
158.3 187.6
135.6
143.9
100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Temperature of the Asphalt Mix (ºC)
Measured Response ABAQUS Modeling

Figure 32. Model Evaluation ~ Longitudinal Strain in Asphalt

 Sections Vertical Stress
1, 4, 5 and 6 - Top of Subgrade - v = 35 km/h

-0.200
95% Confidence Interval
for the mean response
-0.154
-0.150
σV (MPa)

-0.127

-0.104
-0.100 -0.113
-0.086
-0.071 -0.082
-0.061
-0.067
-0.050

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Temperature of the Asphalt Mix (ºC)

Measured Response ABAQUS Modeling

Figure 33. Model Evaluation ~ Vertical Stress (top of subgrade)

Sections Vertical Strain

1, 4, 5 and 6 - Top of Subgrade - v = 35 km/h

-1400
95% Confidence Interval
-1200 for the mean response
-1083.8
-1000
-930.7
µε)

-800
εV (µε

-804.8
-706.0
-751.3
-634.2
-600 -589.6

-525.4
-400
-423.0

-200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Temperature of the Asphalt Mix (ºC)

Measured Response ABAQUS Modeling

Figure 34. Model Evaluation ~ Vertical Strain (top of subgrade)
 Sections Vertical Stress
1, 2 and 6 - Top of Embankment - v = 35 km/h

-0.080
95% Confidence Interval
-0.070 for the mean response
-0.060
σ V (MPa)

-0.050
-0.046
-0.042
-0.040 -0.037
-0.033 -0.037
-0.030 -0.027
-0.030
-0.031
-0.027
-0.020

-0.010

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Temperature of the Asphalt Mix (ºC)

Measured Response ABAQUS Modeling

Figure 35. Model Evaluation ~ Vertical Stress (top of embankment)

The overall conclusion is that there is a general agreement between the measured response and the
ABAQUS modeling results for low temperatures: 10 ºC. But, as the temperature increases, the
measured response increases more than the model does, resulting in an underestimation of the
response for the highest temperature of 30 ºC.

With the exception of the vertical strain at the top of the subgrade, model predictions underestimate
the measured response in 5-15% for 10 ºC; for 30 ºC the underestimation is higher: 15-25%.

Besides, when observing the evolution versus temperature, the measured response also changed
more rapidly than model predictions; an example can be seen in Figure 36.

This seems to indicate a problem with asphalt modeling. So, additional considerations were necessary
in order to evaluate the appropriateness of the linear viscoelastic model used for the asphalt mix. It
was carried out by looking at the unloading branch of the creep test records.

The model underestimated the vertical strain for all temperatures, with values around 30% lower than
the measured response. This could be partly related to the asphalt modeling as stated before, but also
seems to indicate some needs related to the soil modeling.
 Sections Longitudinal Strain
1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 T: 20 ºC
- Bottom of Asphalt Mix -

30%
28.6%
25% 25.3%
compared to 35 km/h

20%
∆εL (%)

17.2%
15%

10%

7.3%
5%

0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Velocidad (km/h)
Measured Response ABAQUS Modeling

Figure 36. Model Evaluation ~ Evolution of Asphalt Strain versus Speed

A linear viscoelastic model was used for the asphalt mix, but the comparison between measured and
predicted structural response seems to indicate some problem with this type of modeling. As the
temperature increases the model tends to underestimate the actual measured response. Besides, the
measured response changes with the speed faster than the model does. So, an additional
consideration has been carried out by looking at the unloading branch of the creep test.

The linear viscoelastic parameters of the mix model were determined by adjusting the actual strain
n
measured in the creep test, by using a function of the type D(t) = D0 + D1·t . The agreement was very
good; the type of function reproduced very well the strain in the loading part. The load step of the
creep test took 1 second, and strain was also recorded afterwards. The strain in the unloading branch
was only recorded, but it was not used for the calibration of the model.

The Figures 37 to 39 show the model predictions for the unloading branch. After the loading step, the
strain recuperates more slowly than the model predictions, and this difference is relatively small for 10
ºC, but it increases with temperature: 4% / 9% / 29% for 10 / 20 / 30 ºC respectively.

This reveals non resilient deformation, probably due to plastic effects, that the model does not
consider. The observed differences can explain the underestimation of the measured response,
specially for high temperatures.
 Axial Strain T: 10 ºC
- Creep Test -

120

100

80

Measured
µε

60
Model

40

20
Linear Viscoelastic Model
Load Unload

0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

Core 4 time (s)

Figure 37. Asphalt Model Evaluation ~ Unloading Branch of the Creep Test (10 ºC)

Axial Strain T: 20 ºC
- Creep Test -

180

160

140

120

100
Measured
µε

80 Model

60

40
Linear Viscoelastic Model
20
Load Unload
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Core 2 time (s)

Figure 38. Asphalt Model Evaluation ~ Unloading Branch of the Creep Test (20 ºC)
 Axial Strain
T: 30 ºC
- Creep Test -

400

350

300

250

Measured
µε

200
Model
150

Linear Viscoelastic Model

100

50
Load Unload

0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Core 3 tiempo (s)

Figure 39. Asphalt Model Evaluation ~ Unloading Branch of the Creep Test (30 ºC)
CONCLUSIONS
Six pavement sections have been considered in this study. All the sections consisted of a 150 mm
asphalt concrete layer on different alternatives of a high quality subgrade.

The sections were instrumented with sensors in order to measure the structural response under the
pass of the moving vehicles that simulate traffic in the CEDEX Test Track. The following variables
were measured:

− Deflection
− Horizontal strain at the bottom of the asphalt layers
− Vertical stresses in soils at different levels
− Vertical strain in soils at the top of the subgrades

Soils moduli were obtained by means of FWD backcalculation from tests performed on the asphalt
layer, after the construction of the sections. Moduli were consistent with the values that would be
expected from the layer testing with FWD during the construction.

Asphalt mix was characterized in the laboratory from the creep test, but additional complex modulus
tests were also carried out. The comparison from both tests shows similar results (in relative terms) for
the high frequencies, but for the low frequencies the stiffness is higher from the complex modulus test.
This result is probably related to the contribution of the aggregate interlock to the mix stiffness.

ABAQUS finite element program was used for the modeling. Soils were assumed to be linear elastic
and asphalt mix to be linear viscoelastic, with a constant bulk modulus k and a time-dependent shear
modulus G. the meshing was validate by comparison with BISAR results for a multilayer linear elastic
section.

The asphalt mix mechanical stiffness strongly depends on the frequency of the load, and this
dependency makes the flexible pavement response increases when the vehicle speed decreases and
also makes the signal registered under a moving wheel to be asymmetric. Both aspects have been
frequently described in the literature as well as observed for the six sections considered in this study.

But an specific study was conducted in order to evaluate whether or not the inertial forces must be
considered or could be neglected in the analysis. The results show that inertial forces are negligible
and can be omitted for regular traffic speeds. Consequently, a pseudo-dynamic analysis was carried
out, that does not take into account the inertial forces but it does consider the time-dependency of the
mechanical properties of the asphalt mix.

Tire load was modeled by a circular area with a constant vertical stress applied on it. The area is
“placed” on the pavement surface, that is considered to be the master surface by the ABAQUS
surface contact utility. Then, a movement is imposed to the tire area, resulting in a constant stress
circular surface moving along the pavement.

The model predictions were compared to actual measured response. There is a general agreement for
low temperatures. But, as the temperature increases, the measured response increases more than the
model does, resulting in an underestimation of the response for the highest temperature. With the
exception of the vertical strain at the top of the subgrade, model predictions underestimate the
measured response in 5-15% for 10 ºC; for 30 ºC the underestimation is higher: 15-25%.

This underestimation seems to be related to the linear viscoelastic model used for the asphalt mix.
This model overpredicted the recovered strain after the load step in the creep test, being the
difference small for 10 ºC and much higher for 30 ºC. This reveals non resilient deformation, probably
due to plastic effects, that the model does not consider, and can explain the underestimation of the
measured response, specially for high temperatures.
 REFERENCES
 Alavi, S. H. and C. L. Monismith. “Time and Temperature Dependent Properties of Asphalt
Concrete Mixes tested as Hollow Cylinders and Subjected to Dynamic Axial and Shear Loads”.
Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologist, Vol. 63, 1994.

 Barbour, I. A. and W. H. Newton. “Multiple-Sensor Weight-In-Motion”. First European Conference

on Weight-In-Motion of Road Vehicles, Zurich, 1995.

 Chatti, K. and T. Kim. “Effect of Frequency-dependent Asphalt Concrete Layer Moduli on

Pavement Response”. Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli: Third
Volume, ASTM STP 1375, S. D. Tayabji and E. O. Lukanen, Eds., American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, P.A., 2000.

 European Commission. “Action COST 333: Development of New Bituminous Pavement Design
Method”. Final Report. European Commission, Brussels, 1999.

 European Commission. “AMADEUS project: Advanced Models for Analytical Design of European
Pavement Structures”. European Commission, Brussels, 2000.

 Daniel, Jo Sias and Y. Richard Kim. “Relationships among rate-dependent stiffnesses of asphalt
concrete using laboratory and field test methods”. Transportation Research Record 1630, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.

 Foinquinos, R., J. M. Roesset and K. H. Stokoe II. “Response of Pavement Systems to Dynamic
Loads Imposed by Nondestructive Tests”. Transportation Research Record 1504, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995.

 Huang, Y. H. “Pavement Analysis and Design”. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1993.

 Kim, Y. R., Y. C. Lee and H. J. Lee. “Correspondence Principle for Characterization of Asphalt Concrete”.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 7, 1995.

 Mamlouk, M. S. “Use of dynamic analysis in predicting field multilayer pavement moduli”.

Transportation Research Record 1043, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985.

 Mamlouk, S. M. and P. P. Khanal. “Bimodular Analysis of Asphalt Pavements”. Proceedings of the

8th International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Seattle, Washington, 1997.

 Mateos, A. “Load Equivalency Factors from the Structural Response of Flexible Pavements”.
Master’s Thesis, University of Minnesota, Department of Civil Engineering, Minneapolis, 2000.

 Mateos, A. and M. B. Snyder. “Validation of Flexible Pavement Structural Response Models Using
Mn/ROAD Data”. Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2002.

 Mateos, A. “Modeling the Structural Response of Flexible Pavements from Full Scale Test Track
Experimental Data”. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Madrid, Department of Mechanics of
Continuum Media and Theory of Structures, Madrid, 2003.

 Nazarian, S. and K. M. Boddapati. “Pavement-Falling Weight Deflectometer Interaction Using

Dynamic Finite-Element Analysis”. Transportation Research Record 1482, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995.

 Sivaneswaran, N., L. M. Pierce and J. P. Mahoney. “EVERCALC Pavement Backcalculation

Program”. Materials Laboratory, Washington State Department of Transportation, 1999.

 Ullidtz, P. “Pavement Analysis”. Elsevier Science, New York, 1987.

View publication stats