Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
by
, ....... , ~ A thesis
of Lehigh University
FRITZ ENGINEERING
LABORATORY LIBRARY
Lehigh University
•
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
their support.
-iii-
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT 1
I. INTRODUCTION 3
-iv-
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
-v-
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
VII. TABLES. 47
VIII. FIGURES 59
IX. N.0MENCLATURE 81
X. BIBLT0GRAPHY 83
XI. kPPENDTX. 86
XII. VITA 88
. -vi-
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Size
system approach)
Table Page
System
-viii-
•
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Solid
Computer Program
-ix-
•
Figure Page
Approach)
-x-
ABSTRACT
those upon which the method is based (the AASHO Road Test
-2-
I. INTRODUCTION
)
Design Committee reported the development of the AASHO In-
-3~
size of loading area. The modulus may increase as the
are presented.
-4-
II. CURRENT STATUS OF KNOWLEDGE
This Guide was based on the results of the AASHO Road Test,
sign is,
G
logw
18
= 9.36 log(SN+l)-0.20+ 1,094 (1)
0.4+ 5 19
(SN+l) •
where
W
18
= total equivalent l8-kip single-axle loads
facility.
SN = structural 'numb~r
-5-
G is assumed to be 2.5 for primary, heavy
traffic highways
Road Test results and gives the number of l8-kip axle load
SN.
-6-
•
varies with the soil testing procedure used and the manner
1
logwis = 9.36 log(SN+l)+0.372(SS-3.0)+log(R)
(2 )
G
-0.20+ 1 094
o. 4 0 +-~':.....:....:::....;.--::--:
(SN+l)S.19
sired, and the design life of the pavement. From the knowl-
.. edge of these variables, the AASHO design chart can be
-7-
readily used to solve for the required structural number of
(3)
where
D ,D ,D
l 2 3
= thicknesses of bituminous surface,
tively, in inches
the AASHO Road Test for the types of surface course, base
nesses.
tance.
valid only for a layered pavement system having the same ar-
-9-
•
-10-
•
test.
-11-
terns have been studied .±n ~so:rn.e detail -anaTytl:cal-1y, and
-12-
For rigidly loaded areas:
(5 )
where
loaded area
-13-
By knowing the applied unit pressure, the radius
subgrade.
tal computers that the theory has gained increased .L..-;-;' ---.
theory are:
-14-
(2) The upper layer (layer l) is
loading area.
two layers.
pressions as follows:
-15-
For flexibly loaded areas:
(6 )
(7 )
-16-
tain an exact solution of the differential equations. The
ficult to apply.
by Boussinesq (1885).
-17-
2.3.1 Method of Analysis
problem.
u.
{o.}
1
= {V.l} (8)
1
where
U.
1
= displacement of nodal point in radial
direction
direction
-18-
The element displacement is similarly expressed as:
O.~
= . {O·J } (9)
om
O.1
{F} = [N.N.N ]{o.} (10)
~ J m J
Om
position.
E:
Z av/az
E: ClU/aR (11)
= {E: R} = { U/R
}
e
YRZ Cl U/ClZ+ClV/ClR
-19-
With displacements known at all points within
the element from Eq'., (10) ~ the strain at any point can be
determined as
of the form
-20-
F.
1
= {F.} (14)
J
F
m
(16)
be
(17)
and the internal work per unit volume done by the stresses
( 18)
-21-
in which {p} is the body force. By equating the internal
T
{o*}e • {F}e =' /h:*}T{cr}dV-:-/{f*}T {P}dV
tary,
(20)
( 21)
If we let
(22)
-22-
(23)
z.
determined.
ments.
for element sizes and shapes and on the size of the region
-25-
III. DEVELOPMENT OF FIELD TESTING PROGRAM
gate) •
3.7 in., the bases from 5.9 in. to 8.8 in., and the subbases
tions in which the first digit represents the base type and
• the second represents subgrade type.
-26-
3.2 Selection of Test Sites
-27-
I •
site. For each test three different unit pressures were ap-
components.
-28-
IV. ANALYSIS OF PLATE LOADING TEST DATA
(i.e. for a single layer) Eq. (7) may be written for the sub-
diameter plates.
-29-
4.1.2 Finite Element Analysis
ses are shown with solid lines in Figs. 8 and 9 for 12 in.
-30-
small. In other words, either the Burmister's theory or
was assigned to ~ in Eq~r (7) and 0.4 was used for ~ in the
plate loading test was not easy to handle in the field, the
-31-
subgrade moduli obtained from high pressures are more
duli between these two bearing sizes does not seem to be con-
sistent.
-32-
4.2.1 Equivalent Two-Layered Theory Applied to Multi-
Layered Systems
components.
~SB (26)
a r
~SG = 1.18 E4· 4 (27)
SG
-33~
words, ~SB can be set to be equal to ~SG. When the same bear-
(28 )
then
(29)
-34-
By knowing the settlement factor F , and the ratio
2
of pavement thickness to radius of bearing area, T /r , EBB
BB 2
can be found with the aid of Fig. 2.
flection for the test data. The required applied unit pres-
-35-
Figures 12 and 13 show applied unit pressures
ment deflection, 0.02 in. (12 in. plate load data only).
The moduli range from 13,806 psi to 43,046 psi as the thick-
-37-
than the radius of the loaded area or exceeds approximately
above 1.5 the radius of the loading area will not substan-
from a 12 in. plate load test. The moduli range from 10,100
theory are generally higher than those from the finite ele-
ment analysis.
-38-
As shown in Fig. 17, the effective thickness
theory.
Tne data were obtained from nine test sites in 1970. There
base material.
-39-
The variation of the base moduli with thickness
-40-
V. EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL COEFFICIENTS
-41-
The structural coefficient of the asphalt surface
(30)
-42-
5.3 Structural Coefficients for the Subbase, a
3
( 31)
-43-
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
briefly reviewed.
Marshall stability.
-44-
large plate sizes tend to be higher than those from
-45-
use -an iterative process to determine the modulus of
error is accumulated.
-46-
VII TABLES
-47-
COEFFICIENTS OF PAVEMENT COMPONENTS
Pavement Component a a a
l 2 3
Surface course:
Roadmix (low sta-
bility) 0.20
Plantmix (high
stability) 0.44
Sand asphalt 0.40
Base course:
1
Sandy gravel 0.07
Crushed stone 0.14*
Cement treated
(no-soil-cement):
1
650 psi of more 2 0.23
400 psi to 650
psi 0.20
400 psi or less 0.15
Bituminous treated:
1
Coarse graded 0.34
Sand asphalt 0.30
Lime treated 0.15-0.30
Subbase:
Sandy gravel 0.11
Sand or sandy-clay 0.05-0.10
-48-
PLATE SIZES AND PRESSURES
Surface 12 16,32,48
12* 16,32,48
Base 16,32,48
18
12* 16,32,48
Subbase
24 10,20,28
12* 16,32,48
Subgrade
30 5,10,15
-49-
Subgrade Modulus E
SG
(for 12 in. plate)
Test
Site B. E. *
F. E. A. *
3
(10 3 psi) (10 psi)
-50-
Subgrade Modulus E
SG
Test (For 30 in. Plate) , 10 3 psi
Site
F. E. A. * B. E. *
-51-
Subgrade Modulus E
SG
Test (For 12 in. Plate) , 10 3 psi
Site
For 16 psi For 48 psi
-52-
Subgrade Modulus E
SG -
Test 3
(For 30 in. Plate) I 10 psi
Site
For 5 psi For 15 psi
-53-
Subgrade Modulus E
SG
Test
(10 3 psi)
Site
</>12" :£L </>30" f
11-0 4.7 6.3
-54-
(I) subgrade (II) Subbase (III)Base (IV) Surface
(¢12 11 p..) (¢121~ p..) , (¢12 11 p..) (¢12 11 p..)
Site No. T SF E *
E
T
SB
E
SB *
TBB EBB * SF
SG * (in) (psi) (in) (psi) (in) (psi)
-59-
".!!JI"'.~
.",' It
5
10
0::
(f) W
Z CD
9 0 ~
0::
W w 4 :J
:J
8
~ CD z 2
-.J u ~ -.J
~ .::.t:.
-.J
a..
:J
z 0: «
I- 7 COo.. 0 0::
:J
0: -« 1000 -.J I-
I-
0 ~o 500 « 3
U
u
~r5
a.. -« 0:: :J
a.. 6 «0 :J 0::
I
:J o-.J l- 1.0
-.J
I-
m (f)
:> 100 u « 2.0 (f) 3
0
I -.J
0
5 -W
:J-.J
ax
50 :J
0::
I-
6 5.0 0
w
(f) w« (f)
(!)
l-
I. 4 W 10 I W
I
(f)
-.J 5 z 0:
I (!)
(f) (!)
(f) 2 0:: W
3 z 4
(f)
3:
z
2 (f)
DESIGN CHART
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS 5
20 YEAR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
P=2.0
Fig. 1 AASHO Design Chart.
1\ ....
LL 0.8 l\ ~ r-..
V<
:\ ~ ,
0:: ~i\ ...
'\
, ....1'-.
--------- ---
0
I- ~ .... i"o v5 Ratio E2 /E,
u 0.4 ....
<t \\ \
~~ "\ ... ~ I-.
\\ ,
LL
~ ... YIO
...
Z
~\ r\ ,
\ ' ~, ... ~ " ...... ~
0 ......
~
0.2 :... .... ... ....... 1/ --""""
\~ \1\
I
C!'
I-'
I
I-
U
W
-I
LL
~ "\ \~
~~
"
, " ,........ ~
~r\ \ ' \,
.... "', .... ...
50
~ ...
i'.
.!Ieoo ~
....
-
....
------- '- -----
-------- ---- --- -
W
" ~
----
1\ \ ~ ~
0 0.08 ,"" ... , 11/5,00............... """"'--
~
0::
W
>-
<t
-I
0.06
0.04
, ~
""
.:t.!.00~
:...
---.
... .....
....
~
' ....Yeooo
" ' ... y.500 ----- ----- ---
~- ~
----
-
::------ -------
I
, 0
0
;:
I- 0.02
.......
~~ """---
o Ir 2r 3r 4r 5r 6r
TH ICKNESS OF REINFORCING LAYER
( MULTIPLES OF RADIUS OF CONTACT)
(AFTER BURMISTER (~))
Fig. 2 values of Deflection Factor, F
i
I
I
I
p p
HALF - SECTION
OBLIQUE VIEW
-62-
z (V)
~~ .
. j , m
R (U)
Axis of Symmetry
-63-
(I) INPUT DATA
1. Diameter of Plate
2. Point Load Converted
from unit Pressure
3. Plate Deflection, ~
I •
4. Boundary Conditions
(II)
IASSUME
Assign Initial Modulus, E
I
(III) FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
(IV)
I TEST
"'64-
.~ ...
Surface E SF -b.;L
-~BB
Base EBB
Subbase E SB
I
0'1
111
I -~SG
Subgrade
1- Sub grade 6 E
sg SG
2. Subbase 6 ,E E SB
SB SG
3. Base 6BB,ESG,ESB EBB
4. Surface 6SF,ESG,ESB,EBB E SF
Aggregate
LOW
11
MEDIUM
12
HIGH
13
(1) Bituminous l2R
Aggregate 22
(2) Cement 21 23
22R
Aggregate
(3 ) Lime 32
31 32R 33
Pozzolan
Bituminous 42
( 4) 41 43
Concrete 42R
Crushed 52
(5 ) 51 53
Aggregate 52R
I
I
-66-
I
I
-- ........ _-- -----
o 10 20
SUBGRADE MODULUS E SG (10 3 psi)
Fig. 8 .. Deflection vs. Subgrade Modul-us for Various
Applied Pressures on ¢l2" Plate
":;'67-
S ubgrade Soil
Appl ied Pressure: 5, 10 ~ 15 psi
;
P
6
!15"
-c 5
wa:/d
(\J Subgrade E SG
I
0 Modulus
......
z Finite Element
0
-..... 4 Solution
u
w - - - Burmister's Solution
-.J
l.L.
W
Q 3
--- ----
---
o 10 20
SUBGRADE MODULUS E SG (10 3 psi)
Fig ° 9· ,Deflection vs Subgrade Modulus for Various
0,
E SF -~SF r2
Surface TSF
F1 P3 (0'"3)
=~aa
r
Base Tea E ee
F2 =~se
E ess P4 (0-4)
I
-....J
Subbase Tsa E sa r4
o
I E ss
F3 ~~SG
Subgrade
a a
60
"
50
e:!
=(\J
"'9-40
z
0
~ ~
w
a::
::::>
C/)
C/)
30
w
a::
Q.
20
10
o 23 4 5
DEFLECTION 10-2in.
~. . Fig . .12 Pressure vs~ Deflection for ¢12" Plate
-71-
70
60
50
C\J
-&
Z 40
o
W
0:::
:J
~ 30
w
0:::
a..
20
11
I2 Plate On Subbase
10 Critical Pavement
11
Deflection 0.02
o 2 3 4 5
11
DEFLECTION 10- 2 in.
Fig. 13 Pressure vs. Deflection for ¢12" Plate
-72-
12R
~ v
Layer I -.--
Layer2- r----
Layer 3
I
- r---- V
~
~
v
1/
~
~
~
V
/
/
0::
o Layer 4 v
10 /
/
Note:
~ The diagonal
V
1/
line completing
v each triangle is
v
v omitted for clarity.
vv
V
~
~
v
~
l/
~
~
~
l/
/ '///////~ // '//// / / //
-73-
Point Load
Diam. of unit
Plate Size Pressure Pl P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
(in. ) (in. ) (lb) . (lb. ) (lb. ) (lb. ) (lb. ) (lb. )
I
-...J
,;,.
I
r =9 II
11
r= 12
11
r=15
Effective Thickness
50 1- ·1
P
-(J)
a.
6" S
6"
rt>
0
•
....... 40
Subbase E SB
w
m
(f)
Subgrade ESG
•
(f)
::J
r 30
-....J
U1
-.J
::J • •
I 0
·0
~
• •
w
(f)
<X:
20
CD
CD
::J
(f)
10
6 8 10
THICKNESS OF SUBBASE (in.)
Fig. 16 Variation of Subbase Modulus With Thickness
(Equivalent Two-Layered System Approach)
Effective Thickness
-
ro
(/)
a.
40
I~" •
•
0
.......
CD, Subbase E SB T
(J)
w· 30
(f) Subgrade ES G
:::>
I
--.l
-J
:::>
•
0'\
I
a ESG Obtained from
0 11
~ ,20 12 Plate Load Test •
w
(f)
c::r
CD
CD
:::>
(f)
10
oABBC I
XAAA
• ACBC 1)
Base EBB TBB
... ALP
o BCBC
Subbase
t1 CABC
Subgrade. Ess (Composite
Modulus of
Subbase and
Subgrade)
100 •
80
0
60
- !J')
a.
v 40
0
.......
m
m
W
(J) 20 0
:::>
-I
:::>
0
0
~
10
w t1
(J)
« 8 0
CD 0 0
6 t1
4 6 8 10
. THICKNESS OF BASE (in.)
gil
o ABBC I
• ACBC I(',( ¥ Y X YXX~
- .....
4
..ALP Base EBB TBB
o BCBC
A CABC Subbase ESB (ep 24" fe..)
100
•
80
-(J)
a.
60
•
A
.
v 40
0
- m
0
•
m
W 0
(J) 20 A A
:::J 0
-.J
:::J
Q
0 0 0
~
10
A
w A
(J) 8 A
<to
eD
6 •
o·
0
0
4 6 8 10
THICKNESS OF BASE (in.)
Fig. 19 variation of Base Moduii with Thickness
(Finite Element Analysis)
-78-
2.0
Average of Surface Modulus
0
-(/)
c..
E SF = 143,281psi
o
&0
0
-...
(!)
Cf)
w
Cf)
:J
I
-.J
...J 1.5 - o
\D :J
I 0
0
~
w o
0
<! o
l.L..
a:::: o
:J o
Cf)
0
0.4
I-
.. . 0.3
z
w
-
U
-
lJ..
I lJ..
co
0
w 0.2
I 0
'U /
/
/
0.1
E Modulus of elasticity
-81-
Total equivalent 18-kip single axle loads
Strain
'.
Surface deflection
]J Poisson's ratio
"
0.,0,,0, Nodal point displacements
1 J m
':"'82-
x. BIBLIOGRAPHY
..
;"83-
11. Hank, R.J. and Scrivner, F.H. (1948), "Some Numerical
Solutions of Stresses in Two and Three-Layered Systems~
Proceedings, Highway Research Board, Vol. 28, pp. 457-
468.
12. Housel, W.S. (1929), "A Practical Method for the Selec-
tion of Foundations Based on Fundamental Research in
Soil Mechanics," Engineering Re~earch Bulletin No. 13,
Dept. of Engineering Research, Univ. of Michigan.
14. Langsner, G., Huff, T.S. and Liddle, W.J. (1962), "Use
of-:B.oad·r:rest Finding by AASHO Design Committee," High-
way Research Board, Special Report No. 73, pp. 399-405.
18. Seed, H.B., Mitry, F.G., Monismith, C.L. and Chan, C.K.
(1967), " Prediction of Flexible Pavement Deflections
from Laboratory Repeated-Load Tests," National Council
of Highway Research Progress Report 35.
A. Surface (ID-2)
b. Dynaflect
r
• c. Benkelman Beam
d. CHLOE
*No ¢12 in. plate loading test on base, subbase, and subgrade
in 1969 field test program
....
;"87-
XII. VITA
graduated in 1961.
,
from the Cheng-Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan, Republic
of China.
his alma mater for two years, he came to the United States
as a research assistant.
~88-