Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Contents
Foreword Introduction and Background 3 4
Overview of Pavement Design System..........................................................................................9 Input Variables .....................................................................................................................9 Structural Analysis ...............................................................................................................9 Key Performance Indicators - Level of Service (LOS) ...............................................................13
Pavement Materials
15
Asphalt .........................................................................................................................................16 Function wearing surface................................................................................................16 Function structural ..........................................................................................................16 Volumetric analysis ............................................................................................................17 Other Issues.......................................................................................................................20 Composite/ Resin Modified Asphalt .............................................................................................21 Granular Material..........................................................................................................................22 Stabilised Material ........................................................................................................................23 Subgrade......................................................................................................................................25
Traffic
27
Vehicle Types...............................................................................................................................28 Unequal Axle Loads...........................................................................................................29 Equal Axle Loads ...............................................................................................................29 Coordinate System for Vehicles...................................................................................................30 Vehicle Wander ............................................................................................................................32 Payload Distribution .....................................................................................................................33 Traffic Growth...............................................................................................................................35 Dynamic and Static Structural Loading ........................................................................................36 Modelling of Multiple Wheels and Axle Groups ...........................................................................38 Nature of Damage Pulses..................................................................................................39 Design Traffic Loading .................................................................................................................40
41
Design Period...............................................................................................................................42 Material Properties and Performance Models..............................................................................43 Subgrade Properties and Performance Models.................................................................43 Unbound Granular Material Properties ..............................................................................45 Asphalt Properties and Performance Models ....................................................................46
ii
Contents
Environment
52
Drainage (surface and subsurface)..............................................................................................53 Subgrade Volume Change...........................................................................................................54 Weathering / ageing .....................................................................................................................55
Construction Implications
57
General.........................................................................................................................................58 Compaction, Workability and Layer Bonding ...............................................................................59 Curing...........................................................................................................................................61 Opening to Traffic.........................................................................................................................62
Pavement Maintenance
63
Pavement Rehabilitation
67
Site Investigation ..........................................................................................................................68 Functional and Structural Condition Assessment ........................................................................69 Treatment Types ..........................................................................................................................70 Functional Rehabilitation....................................................................................................70 Structural Rehabilitation.....................................................................................................71
73 75
Case Studies
79
Case Study 1................................................................................................................................80 Loading ..............................................................................................................................80 Pavement Model ................................................................................................................80 Results ...............................................................................................................................81
Appendices
85
Material failure mode and implication...........................................................................................86 Improved asphalt material characterisation .................................................................................87
References
91
Foreword
Foreword
The purpose of this Guide is to assist pavement designers and managers with the planning, design, construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of heavy duty flexible pavements. Although the principles can be applied to various types of heavy duty pavements, this guide is primarily directed at port and container terminal pavements. The Guide covers the assessment of input parameters needed for design. Material properties, traffic factors, environmental considerations, pavement design methods, maintenance and rehabilitation treatments and life cycle costing are also discussed. At the end of the guide a few case studies are presented. The Guide is a collaborative effort currently involving: Dr. Leigh Wardle of Mincad Systems (Melbourne, Australia); Ian Rickards (Pioneer Road Services Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia) John Lancaster (formerly Pioneer Road Services) Dr. Susan Tighe (Dept. Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Canada) The Guide presents the authors attempt to reflect best practice in the design, construction and rehabilitation of heavy duty flexible pavements. The Guide will steer the designer through all necessary design considerations and suggests external sources for research updates. It is intended to be supplementary to other published design guides with a focus on industrial pavements. The primary tool used in this guide to carry out the pavement design analysis is a program called HIPAVE that has been specifically developed for heavy duty flexible pavements. The Guide is a living document that will be regularly updated to reflect advances in pavement technology and made freely available via the Internet at no charge. It is the authors goal to preserve the relevance and currency of the Guide by in-house research and development and continuous liaison with international experts in pavement technology.
Although, this guide is written with emphasis on Australian practices, it does have relevance to the design and construction of port and terminal container pavements around the world.
Structural Analysis
The aim of structural analysis is to predict the critical strains and/or stresses which are induced by the traffic loading in the trial pavement design. Several trial pavement configurations or designs are analyzed and the most appropriate design is selected at the end of the analysis based on the technical and economic constraints. The traffic loading can be more generic ( Im unsure what this means ) or it can include the details of each combination of vehicle model and payload.
Distress Prediction
10
The structural analysis is used to estimate the allowable loading and associated distress of the trial pavement design. The performance criteria, in this case pavement distress prediction, assigned to pavement materials, and to the subgrade, are typically relationships between the strain induced by the single application of a load and the number of such applications which will result in the condition of the material, or the pavement, reaching an allowable limit. The allowable limit is related to a maximum distress or level of service. Generally most performance models may be represented graphically by a plot of tolerable strain versus load repetitions (generally by a straight line of 'best fit' on a log-log plot). Equation 1 below, shows the typical model format
k N=
[1] where N k b is the predicted life (repetitions) is a material constant is the damage exponent of the material is the induced strain (dimensionless strain)
Log-log relationships can be readily converted to the above form. For some material types the appropriate performance relationship may be in a different functional form but, the concept and intent is the same. A pavement structure consists of a variety of materials which have different distress modes. For example, a granular pavement surfaced with asphalt will have an allowable loading determined by the weakest link. The weakest link is the layer that has the highest Cumulative Damage Factor (CDF), that is the one for which the allowable loading is the first to be exceeded by the design traffic loading. If all loads applied to the pavement are of identical type and magnitude, then the number of repetitions to failure can be obtained directly from the limiting strain versus repetitions criteria. The service life is then determined as the amount of time (usually in years) during which the number of repetitions is just sufficient to cause failure.
11
The second method used to deal with loads of different magnitudes (i.e. actual traffic) is to use the concept of cumulative damage. The system explicitly accumulates the contribution from each loading in the traffic spectrum at each analysis point by using Miner's hypothesis. The damage factor for the i-th loading is defined as the number of repetitions (ni) of a given response parameter divided by the allowable repetitions (Ni) of the response parameter that would cause failure. The Cumulative Damage Factor (CDF) for the parameter is given by summing the damage factors over all the loadings in the traffic spectrum as shown in equation 2 below:
[2]
The system is presumed to have reached its design life when the cumulative damage reaches 1.0. If the cumulative damage is less than 1.0 the system has excess capacity or remaining life and the cumulative damage represents the proportion of life consumed. If the cumulative damage is greater than 1.0 the system is predicted to fail before all of the design traffic has been applied. The procedure takes account of: the design repetitions of each vehicle/load condition; and the material performance properties used in the design model. This approach allows analyses to be conducted by directly using a mix of vehicle or axle types. It is not necessary to approximate passes of different vehicles or axles to passes of an equivalent standard load. In this method, the proportion of damage caused by loads of a given magnitude is equal to the ratio of the number of such loads in the design period to the number of such loads which will cause failure as derived from the performance criteria. The sum of these ratios for all load magnitudes indicates the total distress which will occur. If this sum is less than or equal to 1.0, then the pavement configuration being analyzed is assumed to be adequate. Conversely, if this is not the case, then the trial pavement configuration is deemed to be unacceptable and must be modified in the next trial so that the deficiency is overcome. The next trial will focus on the inadequacy and will adjust accordingly. For example, this might mean an increase in pavement thickness or a modification to stiffness. The process is repeated until a satisfactory result in achieved. The results of the mechanistic analysis are readily assessed by a number of graphical formats. For example, Figure 1 is a sample cumulative damage plot produced by the HIPAVE program.
12
Figure 1: HIPAVE graph - Subgrade Damage Factor vs. container load. Note that on this Spectral Damage Graph there is a data point for each combination of vehicle model and payload in this example the container weight distribution was specified at an interval of one tonne. HIPAVE can also generate graphs that show the variation of the damage factor across the pavement, as shown by:
Figure 2: HIPAVE cumulative damage graph - Damage Factor vs. lateral position
13
Pavement Materials
15
Pavement Materials
The following sections detail typical pavement materials that are used in the various layers of the pavement structure and is directed to the design of heavy duty flexible pavements for ports and terminal container areas. For additional information, please refer to Chapter 6 of Austroads 2004, for a treatise of pavement materials or the appropriate local material pavement design practices. For more detailed information on the material properties and performance models to be used in the design process refer to the New Pavement Design section.
16
Pavement Materials
Asphalt
The following additional considerations should be taken into account, for heavy duty pavement design:
Function structural
Pavement Materials
17
Asphalt base and subbase layers will contribute significantly to the structural adequacy of the heavy duty pavement design. The design objectives are to provide high stiffness and load spreading, and control fatigue cracking. Fundamentally both of these objectives can be met by selecting harder grades of bitumen, and increasing the bitumen content to improve fatigue performance (taking into account the support provided by base and foundation layers) The optimisation of the binder content is discussed in the following section. Research (Rickards, et al 2006) has shown that the selection of mix gradation, which is slightly fine of the theoretical maximum density, yields the highest stiffness, together with a higher filler content (material passing the 75 micron sieve) to stiffen the mortar. Experience has shown that while the selection of large stone mixes (e.g. > 20 mm nominal mix size) in theory yields higher stiffness, workability issues and the tendency to segregate will often jeopardize field performance reducing stiffness and a resulting in a propensity to moisture damage due to higher relative permeability. It is suggested that for practical purposes, a 20 mm nominal maximum aggregate size is used for these types of pavements. Historically, larger size mix has been used when thick asphalt layers were required. Conversely, French practice suggests that for a 14 mm nominal mix the layer thickness should be between 70 mm and 120 mm (5 8 times nominal mix size). A caution is provided about the potential loss of shape in the compaction of a layer at the maximum thickness but in multi-layer structures any loss of shape may be corrected by subsequent layers. For all practical purposes individual layers > 120 mm thick will not be required hence a 14 mm mix is a practical upper size. Certainly this mix will demand more binder than a larger stone mix but it is this factor that will benefit field performance both at a theoretical level (better fatigue performance) and practical level (improved homogeneity workability and impermeability).
Volumetric analysis
It is critical to understand the importance of optimising the bitumen content to achieve optimum air void content in mix design. It is a fundamental requirement that the binder content be optimised at the in service mix density i.e. the design binder content must achieve the target air voids at a level of compaction in the laboratory that faithfully represents the level of compaction in the field. The consequence of optimisation at incorrect laboratory density is shown in Table 1. Table 1: Impact of Laboratory Density on Field Performance Laboratory density c/f in service density Lab >> in service density Resulting bitumen content Consequence fatigue performance Significant reduction Minimal Consequence deformation resistance Other Potential Issues Less durable; prone to moisture damage Minimal
Too low
Minimal
Lab << in i d it
Too high
High risk of d f ti
18
Pavement Materials
service density
deformation
The as constructed mix density is strongly affected by construction practice which in turn is strongly influenced by construction conditions (layer thickness, temperature / weather conditions) . Subsequently secondary compaction occurs under traffic, to an extent influenced by loading conditions, initial relative density, layer location and climatic conditions (e.g. hot versus temperate locations), especially for unmodified bitumens. The possible consequence of significant secondary compaction is loss of texture and rutting. Existing empirical mix design methods, such as the Marshall method, must be carefully evaluated prior to use in the heavy duty pavement design. Empirical evidence from Australian port facilities suggest 75 blow Marshall mixes have performed well in asphalt base layers but are prone to deformation in wearing course layers under channelised traffic. As a general guide, the in service air voids should be greater than 3%. Research has shown that the strength of the aggregate skeleton is lost due to lack of void space and subsequent development of pore pressure effects at voids <3%. Furthermore, deformation will occur under conditions of heavy traffic in hot weather. If the in service air voids are greater than about 7% for a fine mix (slightly less in coarse graded mix) the mix will be more permeable to air and moisture and that will adversely impact durability. The following laboratory tests can be useful for volumetric analysis in the mix design: British Standard Refusal Density (BS RD) Marshall Compaction (@ 75 / 75 blows subsequently referred to simply as Marshall)
It could also be useful to characterize any existing asphalt that has performed satisfactorily at the site, under known traffic conditions and subsequently evaluate its suitability for use in similar applications. (e.g. if construction records are unavailable, then take representative cores and determine bulk density, modulus, maximum theoretical density , PSD, binder content, binder viscosity. The BS RD (BS 598 Part 104) provides a benchmark density value i.e. the practical maximum density of any mix. For practical mix design purposes for an industrial pavement, subjected to heavy channelised traffic, it can be assumed the in service mix density will approach the maximum density (especially unmodified bitumen mixes). Mix optimisation then is achieved by determining the binder content to give the target air voids (Va) 3% at BS RD. For wearing course applications other than under channelised traffic (including heavy front loaders) 75 blow Marshall mixes have a history of good performance. It is speculated that deformation resistance of the Marshall mixes under these loading conditions is adequate because even at low field voids, deformation at the surface is ironed out or rectified by the random traffic path. The comparison of Marshall and BS RD density is useful and may provide interim guidance for mix targets. As a suggestion, Table 2 is designed to provide information on laboratory optimisation conditions, subject to subsequent verification by in service measures.
Pavement Materials
19
Table 2: Suggested mix design target air voids (Va) relative to design conditions Traffic condition Wearing course Basecourse asphalt (> 75 mm cover) Va = 2% @ BS RD Subbase asphalt (> 150 mm cover) Va = 1% @ BS RD or Va = 4% @ 75 Blow Marshall Va 3% *@ 75 Blow Marshall
Va = 3% @ BS RD Va = 1% @ BS RD or Va = 5% @ 75 Blow Marshall
Va 4% *@ 75 Blow Marshall
The BS RD has its origins in compaction compliance testing for subbase asphalt with a minimum requirement of 96% BS RD for acceptance (on layers > 75 mm thick approximately). In the preceding table this would ensure 5% voids at construction a desirable target. Further the evidence of good performance of 75 blow Marshall mixes suggests subsequent traffic compaction does not reduce voids to critical levels. It has been observed that well-compacted mixes containing thermoplastic rubber polymer binders do not compact significantly under traffic. Therefore target air voids could be reduced by approximately 1% when these materials are used in the asphalt. Note, these values are provided as a general guide and have had limited empirical verification. The user is advised to verify the design assumptions against field experience wherever possible. Complete laboratory testing on asphalt mixes should always be carried out and combined with field data whenever possible.
20
Pavement Materials
Other Issues
Asphalt manufactured with conventional bitumen or SBS based PMB can be prone to degradation on exposure to hydraulic fluid and fuel leaks. In short, these materials can soften the binder resulting in a significantly reduced resistance to deformation and mechanical damage. Other polymers may resist the softening effect and suppliers should be consulted. The Shell FuelSafe binder has exhibited substantially improved resistance to damage by hydrocarbon spills. The PRS Rigiphalte product referred to in the following provides significant resistance to both chemical and mechanical damage.
Pavement Materials
21
22
Pavement Materials
Granular Material
The depth and quality of unbound granular material is a critical parameter in the heavy duty pavement design process. This layer assists in providing adequate support for the surfacing materials and also provides resistance to rutting in the subgrade due to shear failure. The properties required in granular layers are a function of the applied traffic stress level and load frequency over the design period. The required depth of selected layers will vary with subgrade strength. The strength of granular materials varies with applied load stress which sets up mechanical interlock within the granular matrix and higher stress results in higher stiffness in the aggregate matrix. The stiffness of an unbound granular layer is also dependent on the stiffness of support layers and this diminishes with depth in the pavement. Hence, it is important to utilize unbound granular materials of quality appropriate to the position in the structure. Well compacted high strength aggregates are required for high stress locations close to the surface. At lower levels in the pavement, lesser quality aggregates may be used, provided they are of sufficient quality to mobilise the assigned layer stiffness. Examination of the stress distribution throughout the granular layer (e.g. by inspecting HIPAVE outputs), enables determination of material property needs (strength) throughout the pavement structure. A good starting point is to examine applicability of local State Road Agency specifications for highway pavements, for use in heavy duty off-road pavements. The specifications relate to material quality and compaction requirements. Attention must be paid to layer thickness, in relation to maximum particle size and density requirements. Close attention must also be given to ensure high construction standards as discussed in some detail in sectionand experience has taught that premature failure is most often related to poor construction practice and less to material selection.
Pavement Materials
23
Stabilised Material
Unbound pavement materials can be stabilized by either chemical and/or mechanical processes. Chemical stabilization involves mixing additives such as bitumen or cement in quantities and to layer depths as determined by the pavement design requirements. Granular materials treated with bitumen or hydraulic binders (such as cement) are generally referred to as stabilised if they are to act as a bound layer or modified if they are to act as an unbound layer with improved properties such as reduced plasticity. Engineering judgment needs to be exercised in modeling the resulting material. .A suggested delimiter between stabilised and modified conditions, is a UCS (7 day cured) of 0.8 MPa. Definition or determination of the degree of stabilisation is important, since a stiff, stabilised material will be prone to flexural fatigue and hence needs to be considered in the design. The material can be produced in a mixing plant or in-situ, using special equipment. The plant produced product, in general, should be of better quality due to enhanced product control in terms of uniformity of raw material and mixing. Conversely, the quality / variation of in-situ stabilised material may not be fully known, as it is a function of the random sampling regime. Refer to Austroads (2006b) for further reading on additives. Stabilised materials are usually described as modified if only a relatively low level of binder is added (such as up to about 2% by mass). The addition of low quantities of lime or cement may serve to reduce the plasticity and improve marginal granular material such that it doesnt act as a bound layer. If high quantities of cement are used (e.g. > 2% by mass) shrinkage cracking may ensue, which may reflect through to the surface. Experience in highway applications suggests that shrinkage cracks from cement treated subbase layers is substantially retarded when there is at least 175 mm cover. However the caution is noted that the rate of reflection may be related to the magnitude of vehicle loading. The type and quantity of stabilant affects the assigned modulus for the layer which should be determined by laboratory testing. The curing conditions and compaction in the field can have a significant affect on the modulus and fatigue performance of bound layers. Prudence also needs to be exercised in the adoption of the fatigue performance parameters especially for variable materials. Ideally, some laboratory fatigue characterization should be done, to gauge the material performance and check the validity of any assumed fatigue performance relationship. In the conduct of the flexure test an appropriate density must be replicated recognizing the effect of compaction density gradient and potential reduction at the bottom of the bound layer. Generally the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) is used as a specification parameter. A number of empirical UCS modulus relationships exist (e.g. modulus equals 1000 UCS (MPa)) and the pavement designer should be aware of the substantial range in the scale of factors.
24
Pavement Materials
The fatigue performance of stabilised material is a problematic design issue because of the change in material performance with time (curing),the effects of fluctuation in density and moisture content and the effect of shrinkage cracking. Great care needs to be taken in the pavement design especially where the stabilised material is a significant determinant of overall pavement design life. Refer to section 6 below, for further discussion. Materials can also be mechanically stabilised, by blending components without necessarily the need for binding agents (chemical additives). In such cases, the components are blended in proportions to achieve a target PSD and Atterberg Limits and ideally the product strength should then be assessed, using CBR &/or Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) testing, which may also be valid for modified materials.
Pavement Materials
25
Subgrade
The determination of an appropriate modulus of the subgrade layer for heavy duty pavements is similar to highway and road pavement structures. Designers are advised to refer to Chapters 4 and 5 of Austroads (2004), or the usual local standard, for advice on characterizing subgrade materials. However industrial pavements are often located in areas of extremely complex and very weak geological conditions with for instance extremely thick layers of saturated estuarine silts. The designer is cautioned that particularly in the case of extremely weak or saturated subgrade conditions the need for detailed and competent geotechnical exploration is essential to ensure a complete understanding of the conditions and the associated risks (refer Rollings and Rollings, 2005 and ASCE, 2001). While pavement thickness design may ensure the subgrade is adequately protected to limit deformation by shear failure, geotechnical advice is essential to prevent the potential for substantially greater loss of shape due to differential consolidation. It is noted that the subgrade stress distribution in heavy duty pavements is significantly different than that occurring normally in road pavements, due to the higher magnitude of loading and load duration. It is important, therefore to recognize that subgrade performance models used routinely for highway pavement design are generally not applicable for pavements subjected to loading by much heavier vehicles that impart far higher stresses in the pavement and with greater areas (depths) of influence on material behaviour. Refer to Section: Subgrade Properties and Performance Models on page 43 below for further details.
Traffic
27
Traffic
The following sections detail typical heavy duty traffic considerations for the design of heavy duty flexible pavements for ports and terminal container areas.
28
Traffic
Vehicle Types
In order to design a heavy duty pavement, it is important to have detailed information on the types of vehicles that will operate on the site. It is possible that both off-road and heavy road-use commercial vehicles, such as semi-trailers, may traffic the site. Initial contact should therefore be made with the facility operator, to obtain details of the type of vehicles using the site, including their load configurations and paths through the site. A wide range of vehicle types are used at intermodal/container terminals such as straddle carriers, forklifts, gantry cranes, and semi-trailers. For mechanistic pavement design, it is important to know what the typical wheel loads are for any given payload on the vehicle. Theoretically these loads can be calculated from the geometry and mass of the vehicle. A more practical approach is to use axle load values given in specifications provided by equipment manufacturers. This approach is used in HIPAVE. Container handling equipment can be broadly sub-divided into two categories according to the load transfer characteristics: unequal loads on each axle; and equal loads on each axle.
Traffic
29
Figure 3: Load Distribution and Position of an Unequal Axle Load Using HIPAVE
30
Traffic
Figure 4: Example of Coordinate Positioning Figure 5 illustrates the convention used to define the wheel locations. This example is for a Hyster Fork Lift -Model H40.00-16CH. HIPAVE will normally model the two axle loadings as separate components, with the front axle (assumed to be on Y=0) as component 1 and the rear axle as component 2. Modelling the two axles as separate components means that the two axles are modelled as two separate load cases, i.e. there is (assumed to be ?) no interaction between axle loads. In practice, it is usually only necessary to model the wheels on one side (X 0) of the vehicle, however, it may be prudent to model the whole axle, to verify whether there is interaction between the wheels . It may also be prudent to model all axle groups in one load case, where the distance between axles is similar to the width of the vehicle.
Traffic
31
Figure 5: Wheel Load Location for a Hyster Fork Lift Model H40.00-16CH
32
Traffic
Vehicle Wander
Vehicle Wander is the design parameter representing the directional tracking width of the vehicle, which usually can be represented by a normal distribution, or wander width, around a notional centre-line along the vehicle path. It is important for the pavement designer to recognize that vehicles at ports and container terminals may not always travel along the confined wheel-paths due to the scale of the site and nature of the operations. Thus, the facility owner should be consulted about details of typical vehicle movements, including apparent wander width, which the designer can then use in the design model. One of the unique features of HIPAVE is that it is able to model vehicle wander, enabling economical pavement design It should be noted that vehicle wander is not normally considered in routine road pavement design, due to the narrow lane width, hindering any significant wander. However, in the design of heavy duty pavements, it should be considered as it can have a significant impact on long term performance of the pavement structure and hence, pavement construction cost. For example at ports, gantry crane areas may result in manouevres that are heavily channelised while in other areas where vehicles are not as restricted, there might be extensive wander.
Traffic
33
Payload Distribution
Estimating the payload distribution is a critical component of the pavement design process. The relative proportions of each container weight in the overall spectrum are important for economical pavement design. A relatively small number of heavy loads may be more damaging than a higher number of smaller loads. It is also important to account for the fact that each vehicle will handle a range of container weights or payloads. Ideally, the designer should be able to to specify the detailed container weight distributions. For example, the British Ports Association Guide (1996) includes information on container weight frequency spectrum, based on data provided by United Kingdom (UK) ports. Figure 6 shows the container weight distribution for 40 foot containers. HIPAVE, in contrast to other existing techniques, does not force the designer to use a single design container weight, or to convert all vehicle characteristics to repetitions of an equivalent design vehicle or load. HIPAVE allows the designer to input detailed container weight distributions which ultimately provides a more realistic impact of payload distribution on the pavement structure.
34
Traffic
Figure 6: Container weight distribution for 40 foot containers at UK ports (British Ports Association 1996). Care should be taken to ensure that the container load spectrum is reasonably up to date. For example, the summary data provided by the British Ports Association Guide (3rd edn, 1996), is the same as used in the second edition (1986) so is at least 20 years old. Data provided by some major Australian port terminals suggest that the peak loads may be 4-5 tonnes higher than the BPA data.
Traffic
35
Traffic Growth
The compound growth of traffic volume is commonly specified as a percentage increase in annual traffic volumes. If compound growth is constant throughout the design period, the cumulative growth factor over the design period can be calculated as shown in Equation 3.
= (1 + 0.01R)P 1 0.01R P for R > 0
[3]
for R = 0
where R = Annual Growth Rate (%), and P = Design Period (years). Table 3 below provides values of CGF for a representative range of design periods and annual growth rates, P and R respectively. Table 3: Cumulative Growth Factor (CGF)
Design Period (P) (years) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1 5.1 10.5 16.1 22.0 28.2 34.8 41.7 48.9 Annual Growth Rate (R) (%) 2 5.2 10.9 17.3 24.3 32.0 40.6 50.0 60.4 3 5.3 11.5 18.6 26.9 36.5 47.6 60.5 75.4 4 5.4 12.0 20.0 29.8 41.6 56.1 73.7 95.0 6 5.6 13.2 23.3 36.8 54.9 79.1 111.4 154.8 8 5.9 14.5 27.2 45.8 73.1 113.3 172.3 259.1 10 6.1 15.9 31.8 57.3 98.3 164.5 271.0 442.6
36
Traffic
Traffic
37
Table 4: Suggested Load Factors to Address High Stress Areas Load Factor* Vehicle Braking Cornering Acceleration Uneven Surface Front Lift Truck Straddle Carrier Side Lift Truck Tractor & Trailer 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
*Note: where conditions apply simultaneously, the factors should be multiplied together. The values provided in Table 4 are provided as guidance. However, engineering judgement / experience should be exercised in adopting load factors. For example: 1) In an area where a front lift truck is exposed to an uneven surface, a load factor of 1.2 could be applied. 2) In an area where the side lift truck is accelerating and also exposed to a corner, the load factor could be 1.1 *1.3 = 1.43 The pavement loading is usually represented in the design model, as circular loading, at constant tyre stress, as applied by the tyre footprints. It is likely, in reality, that the tyre footprint is more of an elliptical contact area, with non-uniform contact stress, but a circular contact area is adopted to simplify calculations. Furthermore, the design of thin asphalt surfaced pavements, under heavy point loads, may be considered problematic due to the size of the load footprint and magnitude of the load, in relation to the layer thickness (refer to further discussion on Asphalt Fatigue page #). At this point in time, a simple approach to modeling the various effects is a reasonable assumption. However, it is important to note there are some shortcomings with current knowledge about the interaction of closely spaced axle groups and subsequent recommendations (Wardle et al, 1999), particularly in relation to assessing stresses & strains in the subgrade area.
38
Traffic
Traffic
39
40
Traffic
41
42
Design Period
The purpose of the pavement design, is to ensure with a high degree of confidence, that the pavement is structurally adequate to ensure it remains in serviceable condition, without significant maintenance expense, throughout the designated design period. Some suggested design periods are as follows : rehabilitation of existing in-service pavement : 10 15 years new pavement construction or major pavement rehabilitation : 15 25 years
The design period refers to the serviceable life of the pavement structure. It can also be considered as the time when pavement distress, sufficient to render the facility practically dysfunctional, occurs over a significant proportion of the area. A distinction exists between the structural and functional performance parameters This differentiation is important and the designer must ensure the owner understands that that the surfacing may require cyclical rehabilitation to remedy deterioration of the functional performance parameters, i.e. roughness and rutting, within the design period. The mechanistic pavement design method is outlined in Austroads 2004. HIPAVE takes into account the effects of vehicle wander that is a much more prominent design consideration than with roads. Depending on the operational logistics the industrial pavement may have highly channelised traffic in tight lane configurations or more random and wider traffic paths in roadways. Industrial pavements could be significantly over or under designed if vehicle wander is ignored. Additionally HIPAVE enables the estimation of damage over the design container weight spectrum, to again avoid costly over or under design.
43
44
It must be understood that this is but one of numerous modulus/CBR relationships that have been derived by various researchers. However the value of assigned subgrade modulus is probably less critical to the outcome than the accuracy of the damage models used in the design. In the derivation of the following subgrade deformation model the above relationship was used. It must be understood that if a different relationship were used, a different damage model would be derived. Caution should be exercised before adopting road-based models for design in offroad situations, such as airports and ports, because of the much greater magnitude of loading with the latter cases and non-linearity of subgrade behavior. In general, the subgrade strain relationship, can be expressed as follows: N Where N k b = = = = = (k / )b predicted design life (at strain level ) material (subgrade) constant material damage exponent load induced strain in the material [4]
Wardle et al (2001) report on the US Army Corps of Engineers CBR method (Method S77-1), for design of flexible aircraft pavements, which has yielded generally satisfactory pavement performance, when used for design of pavements over a range of subgrade strengths and vehicle loadings. Wardle et al (2001) report the results of back-analysis pavements on subgrades from CBR 3 15%, for aircraft masses ranging from 40 397 tonnes, using APSDS to derive the performance constants k and b (see above), below. Accordingly, the following subgrade performance model is suggested for aircraft between 40 400 tonnes (tyre pressures listed in Wardle et al (2001)), for subgrade design CBR ranging from 3 15 %, for 10,000 to 100,000 vehicle passes during the design period: k b E = = = (1.64 x 10-9 x E3) (4.31 x 10-7 xE2) + (2.18 x 10-5 x E) + 0.00289 (-2.12 x 10-7 x E3) + (8.38 x 10-4 x E2) (0.0274 x E) + 9.57 subgrade modulus (MPa; usually expressed as 10 x CBR )
The above performance relationships may be used with prudence, for design of pavements supporting heavy off-road vehicles, such as at ports / container terminals. More recently analyses of the performance data from the full scale trials at the National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF) has been carried out (Lancaster 2006) in an attempt to improve the empirical verification of our design models. The findings from those analyses were inconclusive because of the various failure mechanisms observed however the analyses did not indicate a need to change the current modeling practices.
45
E1 150 MPa
t = 200 mm Base t = 150 mm Base 100 t = 100 mm Base t = 200 mm Subbase t = 150 mm Subbase t = 100 mm Subbase
Figure 7: Sublayering of Unbound Granular Layers (after Barker and Brabston, 1975)
The stiffness of unbound granular layers varies with; 1 2 3 4 5 6 the quality of the aggregate (base or subbase material) soundness, durability, particle size distribution, angularity, etc. the thickness of the layer, and the stiffness of the supporting layer moisture content (or saturation ratio) and PI stress-state relative density
46
The Barker-Brabston model and the derived subgrade damage model assumes the granular layers to be isotropic. Preliminary analyses of the NAPTF trial data is being evaluated to test this model and results to date do not indicate a need for change. It is assumed that the specification limits of strength and durability will ensure the preservation of the layer stiffness. Empirical evidence suggests this is the case and there is no evidence of failures attributed to aggregate breakdown in compliant materials. To ensure the mobilisation of the Barker-Brabston base layer moduli the contract documents must specify compaction to be 100% modified compaction and dry back to <70% Degree of Saturation (DOS). To ensure compaction achievement and to minimise the effects of interface conditions construction layer thickness for granular layers should be between 100 mm and 150 mm. Thin layers are potentially at greater risk than thick layers and delamination at the top of the base layer (caused by rework and over-watering) must be avoided catastrophic failure of the wearing surface may be the consequence. Some natural gravels can also provide satisfactory performance, whilst possibly not conforming totally with standard specifications for quarry produced crushed rock however, engineering judgement should be exercised when analyzing properties of the natural gravel (e.g. PSD, PI) and ideally additional testing such as soaked CBR and Repeated Load Triaxial Testing should be done to evaluate the material performance, for ranking against standard materials. On major projects the examination of the source rock by geotechnical engineers is prudent to ensure the granular materials will exhibit adequate durability in the project climatic and hydrological environment.
47
Table 5: Typical Modulus (MPa) of Asphalt Traffic speed (km/h) Temperature (C) 10 15 20 25 30 35 0-5 km/hr 12,500 9,600 6,900 4,600 2,800 1,700 10-20 km/hr 15,000 12,600 9,900 7,300 5,500 3,4005 50 km/hr 16,300 14,000 11,200 8,600 6,200 4,300
The designer should be aware of the range in operating conditions and then select representative values for design considering as well the typical environmental variations. Refer to Dickinson (1981) for further details of observed temperature fluctuations by season and depth in asphalt in Australia. The weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature (wMAPT) approach has proven to be reasonable and the following relationship to Mean Annual Air Temperature (MAAT) is derived from the Austroads pavement design guide. Essentially the wMAPT is the notional pavement temperature at which the design traffic causes the same damage as the segmented traffic over the temperature spectrum. wMAPT = 1.3 MAAT + 5 (oC)
DYNAMIC MODULUS E* V TEMPERATURE FREQUENCY 10 Hz 100000
10000
Rigiphalte AC 14 MTD
Figure 8: Comparison of the unconfined dynamic modulus of asphalt and Rigiphalte over the typical operational temperature range. ......
48
With the improved dynamic modulus characterisation available from the SPT a more rigorous analysis is possible. On conclusion of the HIPAVE spectral damage analysis the user may reduce the traffic to a selected number of passages of a single extreme load case and determine damage. The dynamic modulus of the asphalt and traffic spectrum can then be manually input to represent the full temperature and traffic spectrum. The damage at each temperature and traffic spectrum is estimated and the cumulative damage summed and compared with the damage calculated at wMAPT. In future development of HIPAVE the spectral damage related to temperature may be automated. While the fatigue data is not used as a specification parameter its application over many years has established confidence in conservative nature of the asphalt fatigue models used in design practice (refer to the Shell method following). The flexure test is of most value in the evaluation of alternative binders, with the limitation being that the relationship between field and laboratory performance is uncertain and has not had substantial empirical validation in the Australian environment. It is known that the fatigue performance of asphalt in the field is considerably greater than in the laboratory (at given tensile strain). This is thought to be primarily due to the effects of the healing of micro-cracks in the bitumen binder in warm conditions during rest periods between loads. The Strategic Highways Research Program (SHRP) from their comparison of laboratory (NLAB) and field (NFIELD) asphalt fatigue suggests Shift Factor (SF) of 10 to 14 for 85% and 50% design reliability i.e. (NFIELD) = SF. (NLAB) One of the limitations of the laboratory asphalt fatigue test is that it is a continuous cyclical test at a low temperature in order to complete testing within a reasonable timeframe. These test conditions do not allow healing of the micro-cracks. Consequently caution is advised in the interpretation of fatigue in mixes with Polymer Modified Binder (PMB) because research suggests the healing of binder may be inhibited by the polymer components. Considering the magnitude of many industrial pavement projects the cost of specific materials characterisation is warranted although it must be understood that the relationship between the laboratory and field performance data is not yet well calibrated. Notwithstanding, it is valuable to use the laboratory test data as a point of verification of the input parameters used in the design process. In time, these data bases will be established and will provide valuable insight into performance. At the initial pavement design stage the use of predictive models for stiffness and fatigue performance are considered adequate. A number of approaches of greater or lesser complexity are available and their use is preferable to simply adopting typical values. The application of the predictive methods gives the designer a better feel for the critical mix parameters. One such method based on the Shell Pavement Design Guide is available in an Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that may be downloaded from www.mincad.com.au/hdipdg .
49
Internationally the trend is to use the triaxial test methods such as the US Simple Performance Test (SPT) to determine the dynamic modulus of asphalt over the range of temperature and load frequency (refer to appendix X) expected in the field. For each material a master curve is developed to enable the designer to input asphalt properties that enable the estimation of damage across the full climatic spectrum. This facilitates the move away from the simplifying weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature (wMAPT) approach often used for road pavement design. While this approach has served us well over decades and seems to be appropriate for conventional binders it does not adequately treat modified binders because of the consequent changes in temperature sensitivity. Interestingly for airport applications (where similar load magnitude to ports are applied) the US Department of Army & Air Force Technical Manuals (Nov. 1989) TM 5-825-8-1 and AFM 88-6, respectively, state that 75 125 mm asphalt thickness generally suffices, over a thick granular pavement, provided that: it must be assumed that if the minimum thickness of asphalt is used as specified in TM 5-825-2 / AFM 88-6 Chapter 2, then fatigue cracking will not be considered. Thus, for a conventional pavement, the design problem is one of determining the thickness of pavement required to protect the subgrade, with adequate controls in place for the granular components (i.e. material, quality, density, susbsurface moisture control etc). This compares with the empirical performance observation of Australian ports where 150 mm asphalt on unbound granular base materials has given good performance over decades and fatigue cracking in the wheelpaths has generally not been observed The empirical evidence suggests the pavement thickness required to protect the subgrade provides sufficiently strong support to protect the asphalt from fatigue, with adequate controls in place for the granular components (i.e. material, quality, density, subsurface moisture control etc). The designer is cautioned about the reliability of the analysis of thin layers particularly wearing surfaces. In the design models it is assumed the layers are homogeneous, the tyre contact stress is uniform and normal to the surface. In practice it is difficult to compact thin asphalt layers so their properties will be different to similar materials placed at greater depth; tyre stress is far from uniform and often has a considerable shear force component due to the tyre properties and acceleration. It is suggested that the analysis of layers of thickness < 50% of the model tyre contact radius be treated with caution. In highway conditions this relates to layer thickness < 40 mm; in heavy duty applications 80 mm is probably more appropriate.
50
52
Environment
Environment
53
54
Environment
55
Weathering / ageing
Bituminous surfacing materials are exposed to the extremes of the weather as well as loading. The bitumen in the mix will suffer oxidative hardening in the event high air voids exist due to poor mix design or construction practices. The ageing of the wearing surface is slow if the insitu air voids are reduced to 5% by construction and traffic compaction. The soundness of the aggregate component must be defined in the specification.
Construction Implications
57
Construction Implications
58
Construction Implications
General
As stated previously deficiencies in established design methods and practices may have a minor impact on pavement performance whereas poor construction quality can devastate performance. The specifier must ensure the contractor has quality assurance procedures in place during the construction process, and conduct audits to monitor compliance with design standards. This may include materials performance testing to verify the assumed values of the pavement design components have been realised. The use of deflection testing during construction is recommended. The recording of deflection data at key steps in the construction sequence, e.g. at the completion of the construction platform be it a capping layer or compacted subgrade; and at the completion of the granular basecourse, may be compared with the deflection calculated using the analytical model and thereby confirm (or otherwise) the input parameters. This is considered benchmark data and subsequent pavement performance monitoring over the long term will enable the fine tuning of critical benchmark deflection limits to substantially reduce the risk of failure in heavy duty pavement facilities. In recent times lightweight hand held falling weight deflection devices have become available and comparative testing with the larger FWDs has shown reasonable results with some of the alternatives.
Construction Implications
59
60
Construction Implications
If a cement treated base is utilized, uniform compaction is essential and a density gradient must be avoided. Density at the bottom of the layer is vital to stiffness and fatigue performance. A strong construction anvil and careful quality control is essential for this to be achieved. In heavy duty applications the required thickness of cement treated layer (to control fatigue) may require multi layer applications, depending upon its location within the overall pavement. Where multiple layers of CTB are specified specific treatments to ensure a bond at the interface are vital to ongoing performance. Layered elastic analysis and field test results from the Accelerated Load Facility (ALF) testing showing dramatic reductions in performance where poor bond was achieved It is strongly recommended that placing and compaction trials be conducted in order to verify compliance The finished CTB surface must be primed or a curing membrane applied to assist curing and assist bonding if asphalt is to be placed. The workability of asphalt has a significant influence on compaction achievement. Research (Rickards et al 2006) has shown that the gradation of the aggregate component has a significant influence and a gradation fine of maximum density provides best workability and the highest modulus. A maximum 20 mm nominal mix size is recommended and 14 mm is preferred. A minimum asphalt layer thickness five times nominal mix size is recommended to assist compaction achievement, and up to seven times is preferred to creating another layer interface. The selection of the recommended gradation and mix size will facilitate the establishment of a complete bond at interfaces. Ideally asphalt should be placed on a primed surface, or a primer sealed surface (7 mm) if construction traffic is to use the pavement. A uniform tack coat (that resists tracking) should be applied to the primer seal and to the prime if dusty.
Construction Implications
61
Curing
Cement treated base materials will require curing prior to trafficking to ensure the achievement of the design strength over a period of time that may vary depending on design aims. Resin Modified Asphalt (RMA) must be cured according to the manufacturers directions.
62
Construction Implications
Opening to Traffic
Subject only the preceding requirements for curing and surfacing, other pavement components should normally be able to be opened to traffic on completion. It is noted that newly placed asphalt may be relatively tender in periods of hot weather and the surface will be scuffed by turning and sliding tyres (for instance tridem axle groups). This is generally superficial and aesthetic damage if the asphalt is placed at the recommended layer thickness and density.
Pavement Maintenance
63
Pavement Maintenance
Pavement maintenance is usually related to the pavement type, design period and pavement failure mode(s). Routine maintenance costs may be expected to increase towards the end of the design period, unless proactive rehabilitation treatments (i.e. major maintenance) are conducted, to extend the pavement life. Ideally, it would be decided in the planning phase, as to what would be tolerable delays to the facility operation, which subsequently may influence the pavement design.
64
Pavement Maintenance
Routine Maintenance
These activities are minor in nature and are influenced by the pavement design. The defects are normally due to environmental factors. Typical examples of routine maintenance would include:
Crack sealing and pothole repair Surface Drainage Repairs such as providing minimum surface slope / crossfall; provision of pits, kerb and channel, etc. as per usual stormwater drainage design; refer to port design standards Subsurface Drainage Repairs such as regular inspection of outlets and pipes flushed at least annually
Pavement Maintenance
65
Major Maintenance
Major maintenance should not normally be required, until the pavement reaches the end of the design period, unless there are unanticipated conditions such as: Change in facility operating conditions (traffic) Shortcomings with the construction Unexpected changes in environmental conditions Shortcomings in design
Container corner castings and trailer legs impart high contact stresses, which may cause localised pavement distress, potentially resulting in an unserviceable pavement condition unless maintained. Ideally, a Pavement Management System (PMS) would be implemented, involving monitoring of key pavement performance parameters, which would enable timely pavement treatments, with respect to both service level and budgetary considerations.
66
Pavement Maintenance
In-Service Monitoring
Ideally, the pavement inspection protocol would be described in the Pavement Management System document. The frequency of inspections may need to increase in the latter part of the design period, to enable timely intervention to address signs of any unanticipated pavement defects. Records of maintenance activities would be an integral part of the PMS. The surveys may be done by trained inspectors using manual methods based on visual condition rating and/or with the assistance of automated data collection devices such as Laser Profilometers (with video imaging if needed). For further guidance on implementation / operation of PMS refer to Haas et al (1994).
Pavement Rehabilitation
67
Pavement Rehabilitation
68
Pavement Rehabilitation
Site Investigation
A thorough geotechnical and pavement investigation is an essential component to the design of rehabilitation treatments. The existing pavement condition and composition including layer types and thicknesses, subgrade type and existing drainage conditions should be examined prior to rehabilitation. The designer must be confident that the cause of the observed pavement defects is understood before proceeding with rehabilitation design. It is usual that subgrade conditions would be investigated to a much greater depth than typically done for road pavement design. As mentioned above, pavement deflection testing may be a useful (vital) component, to identify pavement uniformity and strengthening needs.
Pavement Rehabilitation
69
70
Pavement Rehabilitation
Treatment Types
Functional Rehabilitation
An asphalt overlay, in conjunction with selective patching is generally the most effective and efficient treatment to address functional deficiencies such as roughness, rutting and cracking (depending on design life, extent of defects). Often rutting is confined to shear failure within the asphalt layer as a consequence of poor mix design or selection. This can be proven by cutting a trench and checking the profile of the base layer - if the base is sound and not deformed it may be assumed the failure is confined to the asphalt layer and it may simply be milled and replaced with more appropriate material. Core sampling and testing of the failed asphalt is suggested to confirm the probable cause of the deformation. The presence of isolated minor longitudinal cracking may not warrant deflection testing and routine maintenance and crack sealing would be the first treatment. If fatigue cracking is evident (with or without rutting) it is an indicator of inadequate structural capacity and deflection testing should be conducted and a rehabilitation treatment determined by design analyses. Armed with the deflection data and the knowledge of the pavement composition it is possible to iteratively modify the pavement layer stiffness parameters until a reasonable match is achieved between the measured and calculated deflection bowls. The designer must understand the back calculation process is an inexact science but may highlight where in the structure the main deficiencies exist. These are often in the upper layers due to high stress and moisture ingress in which case the lower foundation layers may be preserved. It is prudent to supplement the design projections with further field sampling and material testing. The repair of asphalt damage at corner castings using asphalt is generally only a temporary fix. Consideration should be given to the use of RMA provided the strength of the base can be assured.
Pavement Rehabilitation
71
Structural Rehabilitation
Subject to the satisfactory evaluation of the existing remnant pavement and the conduct of design analyses an asphalt overlay is generally the most expedient means of improving the bearing capacity of the pavement. Obviously there will be an attendant elevation of the surface levels. If this is not tolerable, some of the existing pavement must be removed and replaced, with the associated modification of the foundation design parameters. Reprocessing the excavated base materials through an asphalt plant has been shown to be an effective solution. Generically known as a Bitumen Treated Base (BTB) the material can be designed and treated to achieve performance properties close to that of virgin asphalt materials. BTB materials evaluation prior to the design enables the designer to input the relevant properties into the design analyses. Another option is to in-situ stabilize (from memory, large stabilizers can readily pulverize 100 mm AC and blend with say 150 mm granular + bitumen and cement).
Caveats
73
Caveats
Pavement design outputs are essentially dependent on the input values. As noted in this guide, there are a number of factors, including the accuracy of input material properties and the constraints of the layered elastic model, that will influence the reliability of design predictions. The design values chosen for material properties are likely to be gross simplifications of the complex and variable properties of the pavement and subgrade materials. This should flag to the designer the importance of empirical benchmarking and the need to revisit projects to monitor performance against predictions to aid the verification and calibration of the design assumptions. Although design software can produce apparently accurate solutions to problems, the predictions cannot be any more reliable than the degree to which the calibrated performance relations fit the original empirical data such as full scale trafficking tests. Thus continuous long term evaluation of material, design, construction and maintenance practices is important. Care must be taken to ensure that the sophistication of the analysis method is consistent with the quality of the input data. Otherwise so many assumptions must be made about the uncertain parameters that the model predictions will be meaningless.
75
76
77
PWRHC =
i
RHCi (1 + r)i
[6]
where:PWRHC RHCi r i
= = = =
present worth of total rehabilitation costs rehabilitation cost at Year i discount rate, specified by the user number of years to each rehabilitation
Maintenance costs (MC) includes the yearly maintenance cost which increases at a certain rate, and scheduled one-time maintenance costs for any specified year(s). The present worth of total maintenance cost is the summation of yearly maintenance cost:
PWMC =
i
MC i (1 + r) i
present worth of total maintenance cost; maintenance cost at Year i discount rate number of years to each maintenance.
[7]
= = = =
The residual cost in a life cycle analysis refers to the salvage values and the terminal value. The salvage return percent of each layer material is specified by the designer as an input. The terminal value is determined based on the remaining serviceability of the pavement at the end of analysis period.
Case Studies
79
Case Studies
80
Case Studies
Case Study 1
Loading
The only vehicle used for the design was a Kalmar ESC340 (front cabin) straddle carrier with an unladen weight of 62 tonne and a tyre pressure of 0.56 MPa. The following design vehicle movements were used: 900,000 loaded straddle movements 900,000 unloaded straddle movements
Table 6 gives the container weight distribution that was used. Table 6: Case Study 1: Container Weight Distribution
Containers at this Range (%) 15% 15% 10% 15% 25% 20%
For each container weight range the heaviest container weight in the range was assumed for all containers in that range.
Pavement Model
Figure 9 shows the Pavement Structure used for Case Study 1.
Case Studies
81
Thickness (mm)
Modulus, E (MPa)
Poisson's Ratio
100 mm 200 mm
2800 MPa ?
0.4 0.3
700 mm
0.3
60 MPa (CBR=6)
0.4
Subgrade
????(comment about fatigue properties, vb=11% for asphalt, Wardle et. al 2001 for subgrade.) Barker-Brabston for Base and subbase.)
Results
Table 7 summarizes the maximum CDF for each layer.
Figure 10 is the Asphalt Damage Factor "profile" across the pavement. Note that X = 0 corresponds to the centreline of each vehicle.
82
Case Studies
Figure 10: Asphalt Damage Factor vs. lateral offset. Figure 11 is the Subgrade Damage Factor profile across the pavement.
Figure 11 Subgrade Damage Factor vs. lateral offset. Figure 12 is the Spectral Damage Graph showing the Asphalt Damage Factor contribution from each container load.
Case Studies
83
Figure 12: Asphalt Damage Factor vs. container load. Figure 13 is the Spectral Damage Graph showing the Subgrade Damage Factor contribution from each container load
Figure 13: Subgrade Damage Factor vs. container load. It is interesting to compare the Spectral Damage Graphs for the asphalt and subgrade layers (Figure 12 and Figure 13). For the subgrade (Figure 13), the greatest damage contribution is due to the heaviest container weight (30 tonne). For the asphalt layer (Figure 12), the greatest damage contribution is due to the unladen machines.
Appendices
85
Appendices
86
Appendices
Appendices
87
88
Appendices
Based on the results of this testing program, the research team recommends three test-parameter combinations for further field validation as an SPT for permanent deformation: (1) the dynamic modulus term, E*/sin, (determined from the triaxial dynamic modulus test; (2) the flow time, Ft, determined from the triaxial static creep test; and (3) the flow number, Fn, determined from the triaxial repeated load test. All combinations exhibit a coefficient of determination, R2, of 0.9 or greater for the combined correlation of the laboratory test results with performance in the MnRoad, Wes-Track, and FHWA ALF experiments. For fatigue cracking, the experimental results are far less conclusive. The research team recommends the dynamic modulus, E*, measured at low test temperatures; the modulus offers a fair correlation with field performance data and provides some consistency with one of the tests recommended for permanent deformation. For low temperature cracking, the team recommends the creep compliance measured by the indirect tensile creep test at long loading times and low temperatures; this recommendation is based solely on work carried out for SHRP and C-SHRP and recently confirmed in NCHRP Project 1-37A, Development of the 2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. The NCHRP report 465 includes a detailed description of the experimental program, a discussion of the research results and the basis for selection of the candidate SPTs, a description of the future field validation effort, and five supporting appendixes presenting test methods for the candidate SPTs: In Australian practice the dynamic modulus E* master curve is developed from testing at 4 temperatures (5o; 20o;35o & 50oC) and 6 load frequencies (0.1; 0.5; 1; 5; 10 & 25 Hz) using time temperature superposition principles. From this testing the response to load performance of candidate asphalt materials can be measured over the extremes of temperature and load duration. This data is then able to be used in HIPAVE to calculate damage over the full temperature spectrum. The dynamic modulus master curve clearly distinguishes the benefits of modified binders by quantifying the improvement in stiffness and elastic response at high temperature and/or slow loading conditions. This is particularly advantageous because historical modulus measurements at a single temperature (typically 20o or 25oC) often fail to discriminate between conventional and modified binders. Further research into the effect of confinement in the field is needed. Intuitively the significant increase in dynamic modulus and elasticity (reduction in phase angle) observed in the triaxial cell with confining pressure is likely in the field. Early work by Marchionna et al supports this intuition by the observation that deflections on thick asphalt pavement structures did not appear to increase with temperature. In applications in the industrial pavement environment the deformation relationships between Dynamic modulus (E*) and elasticity (Sine phase angle) will require calibration. In the interim the empirical evidence suggest adhering to the fundamentals will yield good performance i.e. using all crushed aggregate; dense gradation; hard binder grades in hot environs; binder content optimization at appropriate laboratory compaction effort. Wheel-track testing may provide a reasonable ranking of deformation resistance in the laboratory.
Appendices
89
Fatigue testing is routinely carried out in Australia (4 point flexure) and serves to rank the performance of different mix gradations and binder types. At this stage of development we tend to use the laboratory fatigue test more to verify the predictive fatigue models developed by Shell and implemented by Austroads. As more performance evidence is gained the apparently conservative predictive models will be recalibrated. Of value is the use of the fatigue test to develop appropriate damage models for innovative materials. Figure 14 below compares the fatigue performance of conventional asphalt against the resin modified asphalt PRS Rigiphalte. Figure 14: Fatigue performance of conventional asphalt against the resin modified asphalt PRS Rigiphalte.
Comparison of fatigue properties Rigiphalte and AC14 C320 Constant strain; 20 C; 10 Hz 1000
o
100
Typical AC14 C320 k = 3050; b = 5 Rigiphalte lab data k = 390; b = 11.1 Rigiphalte design k = 300; b = 10 10 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 Cycles to failure 1E+07 1E+08
The Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) is another laboratory tool to enhance the selection of the best bitumen and filler combination to enhance mix properties. In common with the SPT the DSR provides the material characterisation over the full combination of temperature and loading frequency. The DSR can test bitumen and the bitumen filler mastic to develop complex shear modulus master curves, and to measure the elastic and viscous component of the binder. These latter parameters are considered to be significant in both fatigue and deformation resistance potential. In application available binders and fillers would first be characterised and then the binder exhibiting the most potential would be incorporated in asphalt samples to determine the (more arduous) dynamic modulus master curve evaluation.
References
91
References
ASCE (2001). Soil Behavior and Soft Ground Construction. Geotechnical Special Publication No 119. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. Austroads (2004). Pavement Design- A Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavements. Austroads Publication No. AP-G17/04. Austroads (2006a). Fatigue Life of Compacted Bituminous Mixes Subject to Repeated Flexural Bending. Test Method AGPT/T233, Austroads. Austroads (2006b). Guide to Pavement Technology - Part 4D: Stabilised Materials. Austroads Publication No. AGPT04D/06. British Ports Association (1986). The Structural Design of Heavy Duty Pavements for Ports and other Industries, 2nd ed., British Ports Federation, London. British Ports Association/Interpave (1996). The Structural Design of Heavy Duty Pavements for Ports and other Industries, 3rd ed., Interpave, Leicester. Barker, W. and Brabston, W. (1975). Development of a structural design procedure for flexible airport pavements. Report No. S-75-17. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Dickinson, E.J. (1981). Pavement Temperature Regimes in Australia: Their Effect on the Performance of Bituminous Constructions and their Relationship with Average Climate Indicators, Special Report 23, Australian Road Research Board, Victoria, Australia. Shell, 1978, Shell Pavement Design Manual : Asphalt Pavements and Overlays for Road Haas, R., Hudson, W. R., and Zaniewski, J. P. (1994). Modern Pavement Management. Krieger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida. Jacob, A. (2006). Personal Communication. Jameson. G. W. (1995). Response of Cementitious Pavement Materials to Repeated Loading. ARRB Contract Report RI 949. Lancaster, J. (2006). Unpublished Report. NCHRP (2002). Simple performance test for Superpave mix design. Report 465 Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Rickards, I., Gabrawy, T., Sullivan, B. and Tighe, S. (2006) Application of the Simple Performance Test and Complimentary Equipment in Australia. Proc 10th ICAP conference Quebec Rodway, B. (1995a). Design Of Flexible Pavements For Large Multiwheeled Aircraft. Int. Conf. on Road & Pavement Technology, Singapore, 27-29 September, 1995. Rodway, B., Wardle, L.J. and Wickham, G. (1999). Interaction between wheels and wheel groups of new large aircraft. Airport Technology Transfer Conference, Atlantic City, U.S.A., April 1999, Federal Aviation Administration. Rollings, M.P. and Rollings, R.S. (2005). Geology: Engineer Ignore It at Your Peril. J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg., Volume 131, Issue 6, pp. 783-791. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. Smallridge, M. and Jacob, A. (2001). The ASCE Port and Intermodal Yard Pavement Design Guide. Ports 2001 Conference: Americas Ports - Gateway to the Global Economy. April 29May 2, 2001, Norfolk, Virginia, USA (Collins, T. J. ed.). Standards Australia (1997). Residual bitumen for pavements. AS 2008-1997, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia. Tighe, S., Zhiwei He and Haas R. (2001). Environmental Deterioration Model For Flexible Pavement Design: An Ontario Example, National Academy Press,
92
References
Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Record No. 1755, pp.81-89. US Department of Army & Air Force Technical Manual (TM 5-825-2-1 and TAFM 886) (November 1989). Flexible Pavement Design For Airfields. Wardle, L. J. (1999a). APSDS 4.0 Airport Pavement Structural Design System Users Manual, Mincad Systems Pty Ltd, Richmond, Vic., Australia. (www.mincad.com.au) Wardle, L. J. (1999b). Development of APSDS (Airport Pavement Structural Design System) for Light Commuter Aircraft. Unpublished Report. Wardle, L. J. (2004). CIRCLY 5.0 Users Manual, Mincad Systems Pty Ltd, Richmond, Vic., Australia. (www.mincad.com.au) Wardle, L. J. (2005). HIPAVE User Manual, Mincad Systems Pty Ltd, Richmond, Vic., Australia. (www.mincad.com.au) Wardle, L.J. and Rodway, B. (1995). Development and Application of an Improved Airport Pavement Design Method. ASCE Transportation Congress, San Diego, 22-26 October, 1995. (www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm) Wardle, L.J. and Rodway, B. (1998a). Layered Elastic Pavement DesignRecent Developments. Proceedings Transport 98, 19th ARRB Conference, Sydney, Australia, 7-11 December. (www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm) Wardle, L.J. and Rodway, B. (1998b). Recent Developments in Flexible Aircraft Pavement Design using the Layered Elastic Method. Third Int. Conf. on Road and Airfield Pavement Technology, Beijing, April 1998. (www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm) Wardle, L.J., Rodway, B. and Rickards, I. (2001). Calibration of Advanced Flexible Aircraft Pavement Design Method to S77-1 Method. in Advancing Airfield Pavements, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2001 Airfield Pavement Specialty Conference, Chicago, Illinois, 5-8 August 2001 (Buttlar, W.G. and Naughton, J.E, eds.), pp. 192-201. (www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm)