- Dong 2012
- Construction and Building
- 1989 Graham Wood Yin Azizi (42nd CGC Winnipeg)
- Acustics
- 864981
- 46 on Constitutive Modelling of Unsaturated Soils
- Mech Nonlin Intro 14.5 L04 Plasticity
- Design of Machine element
- FEMA 355D_State of the Art Report on Connection Performance_2000.pdf
- SEAsia201005
- Lee Wagoner IJP 2008.pdf
- Tutorial 3
- The Tension and Compression Test
- 230 F14 HW5 SOLS.pdf
- Friction
- Copia de Sesion 1-2015-01cinematica de La Particula
- doc-27-5
- Lecture 29
- A 1D Elastic Plastic Damage Constitutive Law for Bone Tissue
- MR23
- 1.3607663
- Asme Amr2014 Confined
- Ref 1 1997 Suresh
- Outline 11
- 4. Mech - Ijmperd - Simulation Analysis of Four-pass - a. Chennakesava Reddy
- The Use of Plastics in Automotive Industry and Analysis of CFRP on Impact Loads and Energy Levels
- MechProp
- UMAT Flowchart
- maghtahe jooosh
- multiaxial korektor
- 02 PLAXIS Bulletin
- Foundation Design for the Emirates Twin Towers Dubai
- Li Qui Faction
- Chapter 9 Dewatering of Excavations
- SNI+1726+2012
- Chapter 9 Dewatering of Excavations
- Track Design Introduction (Uzarski)
- Tp 1
- 03 Hollow Interlocking Block
- Full Text
- pedoman jurnal
- Pushover Analysis

**The application of shakedown approach to granular pavement layers
**

Greg Arnold

Nottingham Centre for Pavement Engineering (NCPE), University of Nottingham, UK

Andrew Dawson

Nottingham Centre for Pavement Engineering (NCPE), University of Nottingham, UK

David Hughes

School of Civil Engineering, Queens University Belfast, UK

Des Robinson

School of Civil Engineering, Queens University Belfast, UK ABSTRACT: The concept of shakedown was developed for describing the material and structural response to the repeated application of a cyclic load. In this paper the concept is applied to describing the behaviour of unbound granular materials in the repeated load tri-axial permanent strain test. Behaviour was categorised into 3 possible shakedown ranges A, B or C, where A is a stable shakedown response and C is incremental collapse while B is intermediate. From this data test stresses near or at the boundary of shakedown range A and B were determined to define a shakedown limit line stress boundary in p (mean normal stress) – q (principle stress difference) stress space. The shakedown limit line was applied as a yield criteria in the finite element model of the field trial to predict whether or not shakedown occurs in the UGM for a range of asphalt cover thicknesses. For comparison the lower and upper bound shakedown theorems were also applied to the field trial cross-sections.

1. INTRODUCTION

Most current pavement thickness design guides [HMSO 1994, TRL 1993, Austroads 1992] assume that rutting occurs only in the subgrade. The thickness of the unbound granular sub-base layers is determined from the subgrade condition (California Bearing Ratio and/or resilient modulus) and design traffic (including traffic during construction). The assumption that rutting occurs only within the sub-grade is assumed to be assured through the requirement of the unbound granular materials (UGMs) to comply with material specifications. These specifications for UGMs are recipe based and typically include criteria for aggregate strength, durability, cleanliness, grading and angularity, none of which is a direct measure of resistance to rutting caused by repeated loading. The repeated load tri-axial (RLT), hollow cylinder [Chan 1990] and k-mould [Semmelink et al, 1997] apparatuses can in various degrees simulate pavement loading on soils and granular materials. Permanent strain tests commonly show a wide range of performances for granular materials even though all comply with the same specification [Thom and Brown 1989]. Accelerated pavement tests show the same results and also report that 30% to 70% of the surface rutting is attributed to the UGM’s layers [Little 1993 and Pidwerbesky 1996]. Furthermore, recycled aggregates and other materials considered suitable for use as unbound sub-base pavement layers can often fail the highway agency material specifications and thus restrict their use. There is potential of the permanent strain test in the RLT (or similar) apparatus to assess the suitability of these alternative materials for use at various depths within the pavement (e.g. subbase and lower sub-base). Thus, current pavement design methods and material specifications should consider the repeated load deformation performance of the UGM layers. Thus, as an approach to overcome the limitations of current practice, the shakedown concept was used to determine appropriate pavement design parameters from permanent strain tests of UGMs. These

design parameters were then used in a ABAQUS Finite Element Model to define the linear Drucker Prager yield criteria for the UGM . once again. The material achieves a long-term steady state response. where the applied repeated stress is relatively large.e. 3. 2. SHAKEDOWN CONCEPT The performance of UGMs in permanent strain RLT tests is highly non-linear with respect to stress. elastic shakedown. B or C. Once a purely resilient response has been obtained the material is said. Lower and upper bound shakedown limits can be calculated for boundary value problems using Melan’s static or Koiter’s kinematic theorems respectively [Lubliner. Sharp and Booker 1984] who related the magnitude of the accumulated permanent (plastic) strain to shear stress level concluded that the resulting permanent strains at low levels of additional stress ratio. ? ? 1 /? 3 . In summary. 1986]. After the compaction period the permanent strain rate per load cycle decreases until the response becomes entirely resilient and no further permanent strain occurs. where the applied repeated stress is slightly less than that required to produce plastic shakedown. permanent deformation does not stabilise and appears to increase linearly.ARNOLD ET AL. For design purposes. purely elastic.e. the shakedown limit can be used to define a critical surface (or wheel) stress level between stable and unstable conditions in a pavement. There are a range of permanent strain responses to stress level and load cycles that cannot be described by a single equation. 1990 cited in Boulbibane. 2. i. These range of behaviours can be described using the shakedown concept. However the ultimate response is elastic. This allows the determination of stress conditions that cause the various shakedown ranges for use in pavement design. the concept maintains that there are four categories of material response under repeated loading: 1. At slightly higher levels of additional stress ratio. to have “shaken down” and the maximum stress level at which this condition is achieved is termed the “plastic shakedown limit” incremental collapse or ratcheting [Johnson. 1999]. eventually reach an equilibrium state after the process of post-compaction stabilisation (i. 4. plastic shakedown.1 Shakedown Ranges for UGMs Dawson and Wellner [1999] have applied the shakedown concept to describe the observed behaviour of UGMs in the RLT permanent strain test. For even higher levels of additional stress ratio. no further increase in permanent strain with increasing number of loads). however. Several researchers [Wekmeister et al 1999. The shakedown concept has been used to describe the behaviour of conventional engineering structures under repeated cyclic loading. The shakedown ranges are: ?? Range A is the plastic shakedown range and for this to occur the response shows high strain rates per load cycle for a finite number of load applications during the initial compaction period. where the applied repeated stress is slightly less than that required to produce a rapid incremental collapse. The material is said to have “shaken down” and the maximum stress level at which this condition is achieved is termed the “elastic shakedown limit”. where the applied repeated stress is sufficiently small all deformations are fully recovered and the response is termed purely elastic. however. A significant zone of material is in a yielding condition and the plastic strains accumulate rapidly with failure occurring in the relatively short term. The material response is plastic for a finite number of stress/strain excursions. permanent deformation increases rapidly and results in failure of the specimen. 2. This range occurs at low . no accumulation of plastic strain and each response is hysteretic. The results of the RLT permanent strain tests are reported as either shakedown range A.

A Range B response is between a Range A and Range C response. The horizontal lines show a Range C response where the strain rate is not changing or is increasing and cumulative permanent strain increases.000001 A Permanent vertical strain [10 ] A. B. Werkmeister et al 2001]. ?? Range B is the plastic creep shakedown range and initially behaviour is like Range A during the compaction period. After this time the permanent strain rate (permanent strain per load cycle) is either decreasing. The two aggregates chosen for testing were located at the same quarry. Range A response is shown on this plot as a vertical line heading downwards towards very low strain rates and virtually no change in cumulative permanent strain. An example plot is shown in Figure 1 [Figure 3. C shakedown-range 35 560 140 630 210 700 280 350 420 -3 ? D [kPa] Figure 1. plastic strain rate per cycle.ARNOLD ET AL. it is possible that if the RLT test number of load cycles were increased to perhaps 2 million load cycles the result could either be Range A or Range C (incremental collapse). where one is of lower quality and has a slight red colour. The greywacke. Also for the duration of the RLT test the permanent strain is acceptable and the response does not become entirely resilient. but very small. However.001000 0. 0 1. constant or slightly increasing. Cumulative permanent strain versus permanent strain rate plots can be used to aid in determining the shakedown range [Werkmeister et al 2001]. They are both greywackes.100000 C 0.000100 0. 3. RLT PERMANENT STRAIN TESTS A series of Repeated Load Tri-axial (RLT) permanent strain tests were conducted on two Northern Ireland unbound granular materials (UGMs). stress levels and Werkmeister et al [2001] suggest that the cover to UGMs in pavements should be designed to ensure stress levels in the UGM will result in a Range A response to loading. according .000010 B 0. These aggregates are later referred to as NI Good and NI Poor.000000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0. typically exhibiting a constant.010000 0. Cumulative permanent strain versus strain rate plot showing shakedown ranges [Werkmeister et al 2001]. ?? Range C is the incremental collapse shakedown range where initially a compaction period may be observed and after this time the permanent strain rate increases or remains constant with increasing load cycles.

Further. Plots of this type for granular materials typically result in straight lines in p – q stress space and may be referred to as Drucker-Prager yield criteria. On this basis stress levels were chosen by keeping p constant and varying q. The aim was to determine the range of stress conditions that cause the various shakedown range responses either A. The maximum yield stress results were plotted in p (mean normal) – q (deviatoric) stress space (Figure 2). where q (principle stress difference) is also the cyclic vertical deviator stress. The initial testing reported in this paper were screening tests designed to determine the best test conditions for future research in determining the stress conditions that cause the various shakedown ranges. 3.ARNOLD ET AL. These screening tests aimed to cover the full range of stress conditions by using the same . In the RLT permanent strain tests the cell pressure (confinement) was held constant while the vertical load was cycled. It was assumed that RLT permanent strain tests conducted at stress levels close to the yield line plotted in p – q stress space would result in the highest deformations.1 Tests To assist in setting the RLT permanent strain test stress conditions. permanent strain results were needed over the full range of stress conditions that occur within a pavement. Yield Stresses Plotted in p-q Stress Space 1000 900 800 700 600 q (kPa) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 p (kPa) 300 400 500 Best fit yield line (NI Poor UGM) Best fit yield line (NI Good UGM) Figure 2. Figures 2 and 3 detail in p – q stress space the stress levels and paths used in the permanent strain tests. B or C. Yield stresses from tri-axial static shear-failure tests plotted in p – q stress space. to BS 812 Part 1: 1975 is part of the gritstone group of aggregates that embraces a large number of sandstone type deposits. tri-axial static shear-failure tests were undertaken at different cell pressures. Greywacke is one of the major sources of coarse aggregate in Northern Ireland.

ARNOLD ET AL. As stress history is likely to affect results ideally a new sample is required for each new stress level. The affects of stress history will be investigated in the future. sample for tests at different stress levels. RLT permanent strain testing stresses for NI Good UGM.NI Good 1000 900 800 700 600 q (kPa) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 p (kPa) 250 300 350 400 Stress paths Best fit monotonic yield line Figure 3. Permanent Deformation (%) .Test Stresses . For the same sample p (mean normal stress) was kept constant while q (principle stress difference) was increased for each subsequent test of 50.000 load cycles. This method of testing allows the full spectra of stresses to be tested while only using 3 samples. .

3. For calculation of cumulative permanent strain it was assumed that at the start of each new test stage the deformations were nil (or zero). The results were analysed to determine cumulative deformation as shown for one test in Figure 5. Permanent Deformation (%) .NI Poor 1000 900 800 700 600 q (kPa) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 p (kPa) 250 300 350 400 Best fit monotonic yield line Stress paths Figure 4.ARNOLD ET AL. Figure 6 shows the cumulative permanent strain plot versus permanent strain rate for the test results shown in Figure 5. .Test Stresses . B or C) cumulative permanent strain versus permanent strain rate plots were produced. RLT permanent strain testing stresses for NI Poor UGM. As discussed to determine which stress level caused the various shakedown ranges (A.2 Results For each material three multi-stage RLT permanent strain tests were conducted.

Thus the stress levels associated with the boundaries between A and B and between B and C response and between B and C response can be defined. Permanent Deformation (%) . For example. the data of Figure 6 indicates that the 2b.5 2a 0 0 50000 100000 150000 Load Cycles 200000 250000 300000 2c 2b 2d Test 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f p (kPa) 250 252 253 252 253 252 q (kPa) 402 457 511 555 607 658 Cell (kPa) 116 100 83 67 51 33 2e Figure 5. The stress levels at the boundary between the shakedown ranges were plotted in p – q stress space. but is rapidly doing so. . The 2a result hasn’t had enough cycles of loading to fully stabilise as illustrated in Figure 1.Test 2 (p=250kPa.ARNOLD ET AL. 2c and 2d results are of type B. B or C) was estimated.5 4 2f 3.NI Good 4. The 2f result is Type C while 2e appears to lie somewhere on a B/C transition. The stress boundary between shakedown responses B and C are close to the yield line and stresses this high should be avoided in the UGM pavement layer to avert pre-mature failure in this layer.5 1 0. Typical RLT permanent strain test result for NI Good UGM. Stresses that cause a shakedown range A response in the UGM where stable behaviour results are ideal from a design perspective. From the results it can be seen that the boundary between shakedown ranges A and B is significantly below the yield line and nearly parallel. q varies on same specimen) .5 Permanent Strain (%) 3 2.5 2 1. At each test stress level the permanent strain response in terms of shakedown range (A. For comparison the yield line was also plotted and the results are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Thus it is of Type A response.

Cumulative permanent strain versus permanent strain rate for NI Good UGM test 2 (Figure 5).E-03 2e 1. q varies .5 5 Permanent Strain Rate (10-3/load cycle) 1.p=250 kPa. Shakedown Range (A.E-05 Figure 6. B & C) Stresses . . Permanent Strain vs Permanent Strain Rate .5 4 4.ARNOLD ET AL.NI Good 1000 900 Best fit yield line 800 700 peak q (kPa) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 peak p (kPa) 250 300 350 400 Best fit range A-B Best fit range B-C Figure 7.5 2 2.E-04 2a 2d 2c 2b 1.2a lowest to 2f highest) Permanent Strain (10 -3) 0 1.NI Good (Test 2 .E-01 0. Shakedown range stress boundaries for NI Good UGM.5 1 1.E-02 2f 1.5 3 3.

B & C) Stresses . For example. 4. the pavement design can be altered by either increasing the asphalt cover. ? .NI Poor 1000 900 800 700 Best fit yield line peak q (kPa) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 peak p (kPa) 250 300 350 400 Best fit range A-B Best fit range B-C Figure 8. Should shakedown not occur then the pavement is re-designed and a further check as to whether or not shakedown occurs is undertaken. Shakedown range stress boundaries for NI Poor UGM. The field trial uses the two different UGMs tested ( NI Good and NI Poor) where the asphalt cover thickness varies from 40 to 100mm. Figure 9 shows the field trial cross-section and material parameters (E. Shakedown Range (A. ? 0c. or replacing the UGM with a better quality UGM. ? . Northern Ireland.ARNOLD ET AL. For this research project this design process has been applied to the pavement design of a field trial to be constructed in October 2001 in Ballyclare. c) used for design are detailed in Table 1. demoting the UGM layer to a lower sub-base or capping layer. Several design checks as to whether or not shakedown occurs were undertaken for each UGM and asphalt cover thicknesses of 0. UK. 40. ? . 80 and 100mm. . PAVEMENT DESIGN OF UGM LAYER The design process proposed is simply a check as to whether or not shakedown will occur in the UGM pavement layer. 60.

9 73. 80 & 100 3. Therefore. ? 0c Friction angle. ? 0c. Table 1. E (MPa) Poisons ratio.ARNOLD ET AL.9 45 84. c (kPa) 1 These parameters are derived from shakedown limit boundary A-B (Figures 7 and 8).000 0.35 200 0. ? Yield line y-intercept.5 Yield line angle. as it simply computes principle stresses from linear elastic theory spatially within the pavement and checks for yield. 60. If yielding occurs the ABAQUS finite element model of the pavement either fails to compute a solution and aborts or plastic/permanent deformation results. ? Cohesion. Pavement cross-section of proposed field trial. ? ? t (40 to 100 mm) UGM (E.35 54. ? UGM: Modulus. at this stage. if the response to a static wheel load is purely elastic (i. 40. Material Parameters Asphalt: Thicknesses. 80 & 100 3. Field trial pavement design material parameters. ? 1 1 1 2 2 NI Good 0. ? . yielding .35 NI Poor 0. d Yield stress for ? 3 =0. ? . 40. c) 450 mm Rigid (rock) subgrade Figure 9. 300 mm p Asphalt (E. E (MPa) Poisons ratio. 2 These parameters are derived from the yield line at static shear failure (Figure 2). ? .000 0.3 26. 60.35 29.5 94. 4.1 Finite Element Modelling The finite element model developed for the pavement (Figure 8) in ABAQUS is not complicated. Should the stresses at any point meet or exceed the yield criteria then perfectly plastic behaviour is assured to result. d (mm) Modulus.6 45.4 200 0.2 140 172.e.

Equation 1).NI Good 450 400 Shakedown limit line . This residual stress has the effect of increasing p and reducing q with the effect of increasing the strength of the UGM. If residual stresses were not included the result is unrealistic asphalt cover thicknesses (> 160 mm) where as the NI Good UGM has been used successfully in Northern Ireland for asphalt cover thicknesses of 50 mm. It is thus more appropriate to refer to the yield line as a shakedown limit line that defines a stress boundary where shakedown/stable behaviour occurs below. Figure 10 illustrates in p-q stress space the effect of including residual stresses in relation to the shakedown limit lines for the NI Good and NI Poor UGMs. the correct method for defining the yield line is from static tri-axial shear strength tests (i. Centreline stresses in UGM for range of asphalt cover (AC) thicknesses 500 Shakedown limit line . Principle stresses were computed under the wheel load centre for a range of asphalt cover thicknesses to illustrate the effect including a horizontal residual stress of 30 kPa using the design parameters in Table 1 and a tyre pressure P of 550kPa. Table 1 lists the design parameters used for pavement analysis in the ABAQUS finite element model of the pavement. d = y-intercept on the yield line (or in this case shakedown limit line) ? ? = angle of the yield line (or in this case shakedown limit line). A residual stress due to compaction. yield line. A yield line in p-q stress space is defined in ABAQUS using the yield line angle ( ) and yield ? stress value where the cell pressure or ? 3 (principle stress in horizontal direction) is zero (? 0c . where horizontal residual stresses are assumed = 30 kPa.ARNOLD ET AL. Centreline stresses in UGM caused by a contact tyre stress of 550kPa for a range of asphalt cover thicknesses. Although.NI Poor 350 300 AC=40mm AC=60mm AC=80mm AC=100mm AC=110mm 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 p (kPa) 300 350 400 450 500 q (kPa) 250 200 150 Figure 11. . has not occurred) then the pavement design is acceptable as shakedown/stable behaviour would be predicted.e. ? ? d (1 ? 1 3 tan ? ) 0c (1) where. Figure 2) it is proposed to use the shakedown range stress boundary A B for pavement design purposes (see Figures 7 and 8). active earth pressure and yield condition of the UGM pavement layer of 30kPa is estimated.

Six possible failure mechanisms were investigated by Boulbibane [1999] and the optimum failure mechanism where the lowest shakedown stress was calculated is shown in Figure 12. Both the lower and upper bound solutions for the field trial pavement analysis were computed by the researchers Yu and Boulbibane whom refined the methods for pavements. The lower bound shakedown solution uses Melan’s static shakedown theorem that states. Boulbibane and Collins 1999 respectively]. Collins and Cliffe [1987. Bearing in mind that yield is defined by a certain combination of p and q. it is found that the highest possible critical shakedown stress (i. The approach widely used in limit analysis [Chen 1975. At this stage of the research the results were used for comparison with the finite element method developed. ? s ?s ???? cs . The equilibrium conditions.2 Lower and Upper Bound Shakedown Theorems Static shear failure Mohr–Coulomb parameters ? (friction angle) and c (cohesion) are needed for the lower and upper bound shakedown theorems developed for pavement analysis by researchers [Yu and Hossain 1998. yield criteria and boundary conditions are then used to form the finite element formulation. The total stresses. ? ij . are therefore: ? ij = ?? eij + ? rij ( 2) where. as defined by c and ? ) anywhere in the region. The upper bound approach requires the optimisation and calculation of loads for a range of competing pavement failure mechanisms. cited in Boulbibane 1999] of considering failure mechanisms consisting of sliding or rotating rigid blocks is used to compute the upper bound shakedown load. Y Z Velocity continuity gives ? i?? b?? i ’?? s Figure 12. The determination of the best lower bound is usually considered as a problem of linear programming: the maximisation of the load multiplier ? ? subject to the constraint that the yield condition is not violated. ? ? rij = residual stresses ? ? = the shakedown factor ? ? eij = the elastic stresses resulting from the application of a unit load distribution.ARNOLD ET AL. the largest ? ? is associated with the maximum possible residual compressive stress as this increases confinement (larger p) and thus increases the strength (higher q allowable). The material in the various pavement layers is modelled as an elastic/perfectly plastic material failing according to Mohr Coulomb’s criterion. their values are listed in Table 1. . Optimum failure mechanism used in calculation critical shakedown stress using upper bound method by Boulbibane [1999]. 4. ? and c by direct transform from the yield line angle ( ) and y-intercept ? (d) as plotted in p – q stress space (see Figure 2). then the material will shakedown. self equilibrated residual stress field and the elastic stresses can be found which does not violate the yield condition (i. characterised by a cohesion c and angle of internal friction ? . cited in Boulbibane 1999] showed the more realistic three-dimensional problem could be solved relatively easily using of the dual kinematic upper bound approach. ? b ? b ? cb Subgrade E s . if the combination of a time-independent.e. P h ? '? X Direction of travel ?? ?? ?? Basecourse E b .e. The friction angle and cohesion were derived via geometry.

Future research will compare these predictions of shakedown to those that actually occurred in the field trial. Shakedown occurs in UGM (Yes or No)? F. the lower and upper bound methods compute the residual stresses in the UGM that build up after compaction and repeated loading.ARNOLD ET AL.3 Results The results of the pavement analysis of the field trial were a prediction as to whether or not shakedown would occur in the UGM for different asphalt cover thicknesses and aggregate type ( NI Good and NI Poor). The field trial results will also be used to investigate the use of the shakedown limit line for the yield criteria in the lower and upper bound shakedown theorems. Table 2.E. These responses were categorised into three . lower and upper bound shakedown theorems. 5. These residual stresses provide additional horizontal confinement to the UGM which increases its strength.M UGM = NI Good Asphalt thickness (mm): 0 40 60 80 100 UGM = NI Poor Asphalt thickness (mm): 0 40 60 80 100 No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lower Bound1 Upper Bound 1 A shear ratio (shear/normal load) of 0. CONCLUSIONS RLT permanent strain test results for two Northern Ireland unbound granular materials UGM (NI Good and NI Poor) showed a range of responses. The results show that both the lower and upper b ound methods predict shakedown to occur for thinner asphalt cover than the finite element method (FEM).5 was assumed. Prediction of shakedown using three different methods. Material parameters used and layer thicknesses are detailed in Table 1 and Figure 9. Thus the differences in Table 2 are greater for the NI Poor material where the difference between the c and ? yield line and the shakedown limit line is greatest. Further. Shakedown predictions from the finite element modelling (assuming a horizontal residual stress of 30 kPa) and lower and upper bound shakedown theorems are listed in Table 2. 4. FEM. This is predictable as the lower and upper bound methods use the static shear failure line that allows higher stresses before yield occurs than using the shakedown limit line as used in the FEM.

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Contact Mechanics and Wear of Rail/Wheel Systems. For comparison. Permanent deformation resistance of granular layers in pavements. Int. 6. 409-420. pp. possible shakedown ranges A.A Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavement. REFERENCES AUSTROADS. University of Auckland. Elsevier. M.D. HMSO. Pavement Design . .F. Plastic behavior of granular materials. Num.F. 1994. Waterloo Ontario 1986. Chen. J. However. and Cliffe. 1999. Boulbibane. Dr M Boulbibane (University of Leicester). April 1999. University of Rhode Island. Thesis. It is anticipated that a limit line based on RLT test results will provide an improved means of defining the allowable stress limit to be used in upper and lower bound analyses. Final Report ARC Project 933. 1999. Design manual for roads and bridges.F. Part 2.ARNOLD ET AL. HD 25/94. Collins. Range C is incremental collapse or failure and range B is between A and C responses. This shakedown limit line was then used as the yield criteria for the UGM to predict whether or not shakedown occurs for the field trial pavement for a range of asphalt cover thicknesses. Shakedown range A is where the rate of cumulative permanent deformation decreases with increasing load cycles until the response is purely elastic. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge Professor Hai-Sui Yu (University of Nottingham). 1987. ?? The predictions of asphalt cover needed to ensure stable/shakedown behaviour in the UGM for the field trial appeared reasonable using the finite element method with the shakedown limit line yield criteria. A best fit line was then derived to define the stress boundary or shakedown limit line between stable (acceptable) behaviour and unstable behaviour. University of Nottingham Reference PRG99014. Nottingham. Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Ph. Anal. Geomechanics. Johnson K L.F. Australia. The RLT test stresses at the boundary between shakedown range A and B were plotted in p (mean normal) – q (deviatoric) stress space. but with a simple elastic/perfectly-plastic UGM model would then be superceded by the bounding analyses. Sydney. W. I. 1992. Chan. lower and upper bound shakedown theorems were also used to predict whether or not shakedown occurs for the field trial pavements. The present analytical study using this limit approach. 1990. Dawson A R and Wellner F. 1986. and Collins. (1975). B and C. Plastic flow. In summary it was shown that: ?? A practical method for determining design criteria from RLT permanent tests on UGM materials is possible and that this can be applied as a yield criteria in a finite element model for pavement design. A geomechanical analysis of unbound pavements based upon shakedown theory. 1999. Foundations. ?? The lower and upper bound theorems predicted shakedown to occur in thinner asphalt cover than predicted using the FEM although this was expected as the yield criteria was derived from static tri-axial failure tests and not repeated load tests. Shakedown in frictional materials under moving surface loads. 11. Vol 7. 7. I. and Professor Ian Collins (University of Auckland) for using their lower and upper bound shakedown methods for predicting whether or not shakedown occurs for the field trial pavements. University of Nottingham. P. FWK. the lower and upper bound shakedown theorems used the static shear failure Mohr-Coulomb ? ??friction angle) and c (cohesion) to define the UGM yield criteria. Austroads. residual stresses and shakedown in rolling contact. Amsterdam. Methods.

Washington. Dawson. A guide to the structural design of bitumen-surfaced roads in tropical and sub-tropical countries. TRL. 167. pp. and Hossain. Fundamental Behaviour of Unbound Granular Pavements Subjected to Various Loading Conditions and Accelerated Trafficking.ARNOLD ET AL. 80th Annual Meeting. University of Canterbury. 1993. 1989.. New Zealand. of Civil Engineering. Permanent deformation behaviour of granular materials and the shakedown concept. M.C. 1996. (1993) The design of unsurfaced roads using geosynthetics. Use of the K-mould in determination of the elastic and shear properties of road materials for flexible pavements. 2001. Draft 4th Edition.S. UNBAR 3. Nottingham. Christchurch. Seattle. B. Plasticity theory. Jooste. No 1. M. S. A. Werkmeister. United Kingdom. Little. Sharp R and Booker J. H. PhD Thesis. Thom. 1984. J. 1990. CJ. January 7-11. 8. USA.Z. Conf. New York. S. Lower bound shakedown analysis of layered pavements using discontinuious stress fields. Lubliner. Washington D. Macmillan. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 8th Int. Vol. N and Brown. Pidwerbesky. 1-14. FJ & de Beer. The mechanical properties of unbound aggregates from various sources. on Asphalt Pavements. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering. 1997. KEYWORDS UGM = RLT = Unbound Granular Material Repeat Load Tri-axial . August. Transportation Research Board. University of Nottingham. pp. Semmelink. Shakedown of pavements under moving surface loads. Yu. (1998). Wellner. F. 2001. Peter H. RN31. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Unbound Aggregates in Roads. Dept. 209-222. 11-13 April 1989.

- Dong 2012Uploaded byVanaja Jadapalli
- Construction and BuildingUploaded byrpatel5509
- 1989 Graham Wood Yin Azizi (42nd CGC Winnipeg)Uploaded bySeif Eddine
- AcusticsUploaded byandreea condurache
- 864981Uploaded byali
- 46 on Constitutive Modelling of Unsaturated SoilsUploaded bysstibis
- Mech Nonlin Intro 14.5 L04 PlasticityUploaded byRao Janapa
- Design of Machine elementUploaded bymanish3247
- FEMA 355D_State of the Art Report on Connection Performance_2000.pdfUploaded bybrianchen06
- SEAsia201005Uploaded bytamlb0507
- Lee Wagoner IJP 2008.pdfUploaded byChandra Clark
- Tutorial 3Uploaded byKelvin Chew
- The Tension and Compression TestUploaded bynabila putri
- 230 F14 HW5 SOLS.pdfUploaded byBeepBoop
- FrictionUploaded byvikram rana
- Copia de Sesion 1-2015-01cinematica de La ParticulaUploaded byAlejandro GaSpar Huamaní
- doc-27-5Uploaded bySali
- Lecture 29Uploaded byIman Satria
- A 1D Elastic Plastic Damage Constitutive Law for Bone TissueUploaded bySebastian Giusti
- MR23Uploaded byCarmine Tranfa
- 1.3607663Uploaded bymarcus
- Asme Amr2014 ConfinedUploaded bykaur
- Ref 1 1997 SureshUploaded bysandyme495
- Outline 11Uploaded bySuNarto WAng
- 4. Mech - Ijmperd - Simulation Analysis of Four-pass - a. Chennakesava ReddyUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- The Use of Plastics in Automotive Industry and Analysis of CFRP on Impact Loads and Energy LevelsUploaded byGRD Journals
- MechPropUploaded byAhmed Aboaalia
- UMAT FlowchartUploaded bySaikumar Reddy
- maghtahe joooshUploaded byfreemailhamid2002
- multiaxial korektorUploaded bysime13

- 02 PLAXIS BulletinUploaded bycolorpandora
- Foundation Design for the Emirates Twin Towers DubaiUploaded bycolorpandora
- Li Qui FactionUploaded bycolorpandora
- Chapter 9 Dewatering of ExcavationsUploaded bycolorpandora
- SNI+1726+2012Uploaded bycolorpandora
- Chapter 9 Dewatering of ExcavationsUploaded bycolorpandora
- Track Design Introduction (Uzarski)Uploaded bycolorpandora
- Tp 1Uploaded bycolorpandora
- 03 Hollow Interlocking BlockUploaded bycolorpandora
- Full TextUploaded bycolorpandora
- pedoman jurnalUploaded bycolorpandora
- Pushover AnalysisUploaded bycolorpandora