Anda di halaman 1dari 16

Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2013

Vol. 14, No. 1, 196–210, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2012.757558

Fast layered elastic response program for the analysis of flexible pavement
structures
Sigurdur Erlingssona,b * and Abubeker W. Ahmeda,c
a Department of Pavement Technology, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, VTI,

Linköping, Sweden; b Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iceland, Reykjavik,
Iceland; c Department of Transport Science, Division of Highway and Railway Engineering, KTH Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

One of the key components in analysing pavement structural behaviour is the response model
which is used to estimate the stresses, strains and displacements of the pavement structure
subjected to the existing traffic, taking into account the material properties and prevailing envi-
ronmental conditions. Multilayer elastic theory (MLET) is often preferred over other methods
such as the finite element method, due to its computational performance for repeated appli-
cations. A new elastic response analysis program has been developed based on the Burmister
MLET theory to calculate the response of flexible pavement structures. In the development of
the program, the time-consuming part of MLET processes was optimised. To improve the con-
vergence and accuracy of responses in the vicinity of the surface of the top layer, an approach
based on Richardson’s extrapolation was employed. Moreover, an iterative approach to model
stress dependency of unbound granular materials was incorporated. A comprehensive compar-
ison of the program with two frequently used programs demonstrated an excellent agreement
and improved performance.
Keywords: layered elastic theory; responses of pavements; elastic half-space; Richardson’s
extrapolation; numerical integration

1. Introduction
One of the key components in analysing pavement structural behaviour is the response model
which is used to estimate the stresses, strains and displacements of the pavement structure
subjected to the existing traffic, taking into account the material properties and prevailing environ-
mental conditions. Depending on the desired accuracy and computational speed, different methods
of response calculation may be employed for a given problem such as 3D finite element methods
(FEM) or multilayer elastic theory (MLET). Though 3D FEM are comprehensive in their ability
to model characteristics of real pavement structures such as a wide variety of nonlinear material
behaviour, they are computationally expensive due to the inherent procedures involved. This has
made the MLET method superior over a 3D FEM method and MLET is commonly preferred
for applications in mechanistic empirical (M-E) pavement design methods because for such an
application the response calculation is performed several times.
The MLET developed by Burmister has been employed in many pavement engineering appli-
cations to calculate the responses of layered structures due to external loading (Acum & Fox,
1951; Bufler, 1971; Jones, 1962; Maina & Matsui, 2005; Peattie, 1962; Verstraeten, 1967). As
flexible pavements are layered structures composed of layers with different material properties,

*Corresponding author. Email: sigurdur.erlingsson@vti.se

© 2013 Taylor & Francis


Road Materials and Pavement Design 197

Burmister theory can be utilised to obtain the responses of pavement structures (Everseries, 2005;
Huang, 2004) and with the advent of high-speed computers it is possible to use this method for
many layers.
The main objective of this work was to develop a fast and reliable multilayer elastic program,
elastic response analysis of flexible pavements (ERAPAVE). In the development of the program,
different possibilities to improve the performance of MLET have been studied, such as optimis-
ing the numerical integration by evaluating the stress coefficients at selected points and using
piecewise interpolation to compute the coefficients for other locations. Moreover, Richardson’s
extrapolation has been applied to improve the performance of near-surface responses.
The accuracy and performance of ERAPAVE were compared with two existing layered elas-
tic programs, KENtucky PAVEment analysis program KENPAVE and WinJulea. WinJulea is a
Windows version of the layered elastic program JULEA, which has been implemented in the
US Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide for pavements (ARA, 2004). The ERAPAVE
program was used to analyse several pavement structures and the agreement with KENPAVE and
WinJulea was almost perfect. A module to take stress dependency of unbound granular material
was also included. A verification of the nonlinear analysis with the KENPAVE program was
carried out, and very good agreement was obtained.

2. Response modelling of flexible pavements


Flexible pavements are layered structures, conventionally with the stiffer layer placed at the top and
weaker layers at the bottom. Their responses to external loadings are well represented in an analysis
based on a multilayer elastic approach. The basics of linear theory of elasticity for homogeneous
half-space have been well established by Boussinesq and the extension to multilayer systems has
been presented by Burmister (1943, 1945). The assumptions made for Burmister solutions are
(Huang, 2004):

• Each layer is homogeneous, isotropic and linear elastic.


• The material is weightless and extends infinitely in a horizontal direction.
• Each layer has a finite thickness, except the bottom layer which is of infinite thickness.
• The load is distributed uniformly over a circular area.
• A continuity equation is fulfilled at all layer interfaces.

An axisymmetric solution of a multilayer elastic system loaded with a constant load q, which
is distributed over a circular area as shown in Figure 1, begins from the classical theory of
elasticity where it is well known that an axisymmetric problem can be solved by assuming a
stress function that satisfies the governing differential equations together with the boundary and
continuity equations (Timoshenko & Goodier, 1951).
By introducing a stress function φ, the governing fourth-order differential equation can be
written, using the Laplace operator, as

∇ 4 ϕ = 0. (1)

For a multilayer elastic structure Equation (1) is assumed to be satisfied for each of the constituent
layers and for axially symmetrical stress distribution the Laplace operator ∇ 4 is defined as
  
∂2 1 ∂ ∂2 ∂2 1 ∂ ∂
∇ =
4
+ + + + 2 , (2)
∂r 2 r ∂r ∂z 2 ∂r 2 r ∂r ∂z
198 S. Erlingsson and A.W. Ahmed

a
q
r
E1 , v1 z1
z2
E2 , v2
zn-2
H

En-1 , vn-1

En , vn
z

Figure 1. Layered system with a uniform circular loading of radius a.

where r and z are radial and vertical cylindrical co-ordinates, respectively, as shown in Figure 1.
The axisymmetric responses, stresses and displacements, can be obtained from (Maina & Matsui,
2005; Timoshenko & Goodier, 1951)
⎡ ⎤
∂ ∂3
⎢ (2 − ν) ∂z − 3 ⎥
⎢ ∂z ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ∂ ∂ ∂ 2 ⎥
⎢ ν − ⎥
⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ∂z ∂z ∂r 2 ⎥
σz ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ σr ⎥ ⎢ ∂

∂ 1 ∂ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ν ⎥
2
⎢ σt ⎥ ⎢ ∂z ∂z r ∂r ⎥ ∇ ϕ
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ (3)
⎢τrz ⎥ ⎢ ∂ ∂2 ⎥ ϕ
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ (1 − ν) ∂ − ⎥
⎣w⎦ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ∂r ∂r ∂z 2

u ⎢  2 ⎥
⎢1 + ν 1+ν ∂ 1 ∂ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ E (1 − 2ν) E ∂r 2
+
r ∂r ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢  2  ⎥
⎣ 1+ν ∂ ⎦
0 −
E ∂r∂z

in which v and E are Poisson’s ratio and modulus of elasticity of the material, respectively;
and σ , τ , w and u are normal stress, shear stress, vertical displacement and radial displacement,
respectively.
The solution of the stress function φ for the ith layer which satisfies the governing differential
equation is given as (Huang, 2004)

H 3 J0 (mρ) Ai e−m(λi −λ) − Bi e−m(λ−λi−1 ) +
ϕi (r, z) = , (4)
m2 Ci mλ e−m(λi −λ) − Di mλ e−m(λ−λi−1 )

where H denotes the distance from the pavement surface to the top of the lowest layer, ρ = r/H ,
λ = z/H , λi = zi /H , zi denotes the distance from the pavement surface to the bottom of the ith
layer; Ai , Bi , Ci and Di are the constants of integrations; J0 is a Bessel function of the first kind
and order 0 (Van Cauwelaert, 2003) and m is a parameter. The subscript i denotes the quantity
corresponding to the ith layer and it varies from 1 to n.
Road Materials and Pavement Design 199

Introducing the stress function in Equation (4) into Equation (3) gives:
⎡ c⎤
σz ⎡ ⎤
⎢σ c ⎥ A
⎢ rc ⎥
⎢σ ⎥ ⎢B⎥
⎢ c⎥ =
⎢ ⎥ ,
t (5)
⎢τ ⎥ ⎣C ⎦
⎢ rzc ⎥
⎣w ⎦ D i
uc i

where the superscript ‘c’ is used to note that those responses are due to a concentrated load, i.e.
for a point load, and
is given by
⎡ −m(λi −λ) −m(λ−λi−1 ) −m(λi −λ) −m(λ−λi−1 ) ⎤
βe βe −β(1 − 2νi − mλ)e −β(1 − 2υi + mλ)e
−m(λ −λ) ψe−m(λ−λi−1 ) (ψ(1 + mλ) + 2νi mJ0 (mρ)) e−m(λi −λ) (ψ(mλ − 1) − 2νi mJ0 (mρ)) e−m(λ−λi−1 ) ⎥
⎢ψe−m(λii−λ)
⎢ξe ξ e−m(λ−λi−1 ) (ξ(1 + mλ) + 2νi mJ0 (mρ)) e−m(λi −λ) (ξ(mλ − 1) − 2νi mJ0 (mρ)) e−m(λ−λi−1 ) ⎥

= ⎢ φe−m(λi −λ) −φe−m(λ−λi−1 ) φ(2νi + mλ)e−m(λi −λ) φ(2υi − mλ)e−m(λ−λi−1 ) ⎥,


⎣ −m(λi −λ) ⎦
δe −δe−m(λ−λi−1 ) −δ(2 − 4νi − mλ)e−m(λi −λ) −δ(2 − 4νi + mλ)e−m(λ−λi−1 )
γ e−m(λi −λ) γ e−m(λ−λi−1 ) γ (1 + mλ)e−m(λi −λ) −γ (1 − mλ)e−m(λ−λi−1 )

where the coefficients β, ψ, ξ , ϕ, δ and γ are given as


⎡ ⎤
−mJ0 (mρ)
⎢ J1 (mρ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎡ ⎤ ⎢mJ0 (mρ) − ⎥
β ⎢ ρ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ψ ⎥ ⎢ J1 (mρ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ξ ⎥ ⎢ ρ ⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥,
⎢φ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ mJ1 (mρ) ⎥
⎣δ⎦ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 + νi ⎥
γ ⎢ − J0 (mρ) ⎥
⎢ E ⎥
⎢ i ⎥
⎣ 1 + νi ⎦
J1 (mρ)
Ei
where J1 denotes the Bessel function of the first kind and order one.

3. Response for circular loading


Equation (5) gives the response within layer i for a concentrated surface load of magnitude
P = −mJ0 (mρ). Thus, to obtain the response due to a circularly distributed load, integration
over the loaded area is required. In this study, two numerical integration techniques, the Gauss–
Kronrod quadrature rule and four-point Gaussian formulas, were tested as presented in Section 4.
The integration requires first computing the coefficients of the stress function for each Bessel
parameter m using the boundary and continuity conditions at the layer interfaces. Using the
Hankel transform method, the integral of Equation (5) is given as
 ∞ c
S
S = qα J1 (mα) dm, (6)
0 m
where S c is the response due to a concentrated load of P = −mJ0 (mρ) and S is the response
under a circular distributed load and α = a/H , where a is the contact radius.
For a pavement structure with n layers, there exist 4n boundary conditions where two of them
are found from the pavement surface where the shear stress is zero and the normal stress equals
200 S. Erlingsson and A.W. Ahmed

the applied contact pressure. Furthermore, two more boundary conditions can be found from the
fact that both stress and displacement vanishes as the depth approaches infinity (An = Cn = 0).
The remaining 4n − 4 equations are obtained from the continuity conditions at the n − 1 layer
interfaces.
The boundary conditions at the pavement surface can be summarized in the matrix form where
the first row gives the condition for normal stress and the second row for shear stress

⎡ ⎤

−mλ A1

e 1 1 −1(1 − 2ν1 )e−mλ1 1 − 2ν1 ⎢ B1 ⎥
L1 = −mλ1 and L1 ⎢ ⎥= 1 . (7)
e 1 2ν1 e−mλ1 2ν1 ⎣ C1 ⎦ 0
D1

The continuity conditions at the boundary between the layers can be written as

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ c⎤
σzc σz
⎢τ c ⎥ ⎢τ c ⎥
⎢ c ⎥ = ⎢ rzc ⎥ ,
rz (8)
⎣w ⎦ ⎣w ⎦
c
u i uc i+1

introducing the notations, Fi = e−m(λi −λi−1 ) and Ri = (Ei /Ei+1 )(1 + vi+1 )/(1 + vi ) and using
Equation (5) in Equation (8) gives, after rearranging

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
Ai Ai+1
⎢ Bi ⎥ ⎢ Bi+1 ⎥
LCi ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣Ci ⎦ = RCi ⎣Ci+1 ⎦ , (9)
Di Di+1

where the matrices LCi and RCi are given by

⎡ ⎤
1 Fi −(1 − 2νi − mλi ) (1 − 2νi + mλi )Fi
⎢1 −Fi 2νi + mλi (2νi − mλi )Fi ⎥
LCi = ⎢
⎣1 Fi
⎥,
1 + mλi −(1 − mλi )Fi ⎦
1 −Fi −(2 − 4vi − mλi ) −(2 − 4vi + mλi )Fi
⎡ ⎤
Fi+1 1 −(1 − 2νi+1 − mλi )Fi+1 (1 − 2νi+1 + mλi )
⎢ Fi+1 −1 (2νi+1 + mλi )Fi+1 (2νi+1 − mλi ) ⎥
RCi = ⎢
⎣Ri Fi+1 Ri
⎥.

(1 + mλi )Ri Fi+1 −(1 − mλi )Ri
Ri Fi+1 −Ri −(2 − 4vi+1 − mλi )Ri Fi+1 −(2 − 4vi+1 + mλi )Ri

Equations (7)–(9) are used to obtain the coefficients (Ai , Bi , Ci and Di ) of the stress function
which are then used in Equation (6). The boundary and continuity conditions form a system of
equations which can be collected into one larger matrix that can be solved to give the coefficients.
The system of equations can be written as

AX = B, (10)
Road Materials and Pavement Design 201

where A, B and X are given by

⎡ ⎤
L1 02×4 02×4 02×4 02×4 02×4 ··· 02×2
⎢ .. ⎥
⎢ LC1 −RC1 04×4 04×4 04×4 . ··· 04×2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥
⎢04×4 LC2 −RC2 04×4 04×4 . ··· 04×2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥
A = ⎢04×4 04×4 LC3 −RC3 04×4 04×4 ··· . ⎥,
⎢ ⎥
⎢ . . .. .. ⎥
⎢ .. .. 04×4 . 04×4 ··· . ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ . . .. .. .. ⎥
⎣ .. .. . 04×4 04×4 . . 04×2 ⎦
04×4 04×4 04×4 ··· ··· 04×4 LCn−1 −RCn−1
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
A1 1
⎢ B1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ C1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ D1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ A2 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ B2 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ C2 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ D2 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
X = ⎢ . ⎥, B = ⎢ .⎥
⎢ .. ⎥ .
⎢ .. ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ .. ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢.⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ An−1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Bn−1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢Cn−1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢Dn−1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ Bn ⎦ ⎣0⎦
Dn 0

In the matrix A, 0r×c denotes a matrix of row r and column c with zero at all entries. Matrix A is
a function of the Hankel parameter m; thus in Equation (6), for each value of m, the coefficients
must be calculated from Equation (10).
Equation (10) was solved by decomposing the matrix A into lower and upper (LU-factorisation)
triangular matrices and followed by forward and backward substitution.

3.1. Optimisation of computation of coefficients


As described in the previous section, the computation of the stress coefficients requires a matrix
inversion which is usually computationally expensive. To optimise this process, the trends in the
coefficients A, B, C and D were studied for several structures and loading conditions. Figures 2
and 3 depict the characteristics of the coefficients A, B, C and D of the stress function as a function
of the Hankel parameter m for a four-layer structure. From the figures it can be observed that all the
coefficients are fairly monotonic, i.e. continuously decreasing or increasing. Therefore, to decrease
the number of matrix inversions to solve the linear system of equations, as with Equation (10),
the coefficients were calculated only for selected key values of the Hankel parameter m. The
coefficients for other values of m can thereafter be estimated from the calculated coefficients
using a piecewise linear interpolation. Moreover, as the coefficients are only a function of the
202 S. Erlingsson and A.W. Ahmed

2 10

0 8
Layer-1

Layer-2

–2 6
Layer-3

B
Layer-4
4
A

–4
Layer-1
Layer-2
2
–6 Layer-3
Layer-4
0
–8

–2
–10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Hankel parameter m
Hankel parameter m

Figure 2. Coefficients A and B of the stress function as a function of the Hankel parameter m for a four-layer
structure.

12 16

14
10 Layer-1
12 Layer-2
8
Layer-1 Layer-3
10
Layer-2 Layer-4
6
D

8
Layer-3
C

4 Layer-4 6

4
2
2
0
0

–2 –2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Hankel parameter m Hankel parameter m

Figure 3. Coefficients C and D of the stress function as a function of the Hankel parameter m for a
four-layer structure.

boundary and continuity conditions and material properties, they need to be calculated only once
and can be used as much as needed through the interpolator function; in other words they do not
have to be established for each depth and radial location.

4. Numerical integration techniques


The infinite integral in Equation (6) cannot be integrated analytically; it must therefore be evaluated
using numerical integration. Different approaches have been implemented in the layered elastic
programs within the pavement community. In the programs KENPAVE, BISAR, MnLayer and
JULEA, Gauss quadrature rules are employed (Huang, 2004) and in WESLEA (Van Cauwelaert
& Lequeux, 1986), Newton–Coates integration quadrature was used while the Gauss–Laguerre
integration technique has been implemented in LEAF (Layered Elastic Analysis computer pro-
gram for Federal aviation administration) (Hayhoe, 2002). Recently Maina and Matsui (2005)
presented an approach based on the application of double exponential integration. This approach
was integrated into an MLET computer program.
Road Materials and Pavement Design 203

Using a family of Gaussian integration, a finite or infinite integral of a function S is approximated


by a finite summation or n-point Gaussian quadrature
 ∞ 
n
I= S(m) dm = ωi Si (mi ), (11)
0 i=1

where ωi denotes the weights and Si is a function evaluated at selected integration points mi .
Furthermore, for infinite integrals involving Bessel functions, Lukas and Stone (1994) sug-
gested the use of the Gauss–Kronrod integration rule, which is an adaptive variant of Gaussian
quadrature. The performance of this scheme was evaluated by implementing it in Matlab, but
the gain in performance obtained when compared with the four-point Gaussian formula was not
significant; thus it is not presented here.
The most common approach to integrate functions of the type in Equation (6) is to integrate
numerically, between the zeroes of the Bessel function, using the n-point Gaussian formula given
by (Huang, 2004; Khazanovich & Wang, 2007)
 ∞  zi+1 
n
I= S(m) dm = S(m) dm = ωi Si (mi ), (12)
0 zi i=1

where zi and zi+1 are any two successive zeroes of the Bessel function and n is the number of the
Gaussian integration point.
A direct integration approach is employed in most multilayer elastic programs, where for
each Hankel parameter m, the coefficients are calculated from the linear system of equation (10)
and these coefficients are used in the integral. Recently, Khazanovich and Wang (2007) after
studying the integral in Equation (6) and expressing it as a product of two functions, one with a
fairly monotonic nature but computationally expensive and the other with a cyclic nature which
involves Bessel functions of the first kind (Van Cauwelaert, 2003), suggested optimisation of the
computationally expensive part of the integral by evaluating it at selected key locations. Thus, the
values at these key points were used to evaluate the function at other values of m using a simple
interpolation. This approach was implemented in the computer program MnLayer.
In this paper, the coefficients used in the integration were calculated from the piecewise linear
interpolation of the coefficients calculated at the selected points, as discussed in the previous
section.

5. Treatments for surface and near-surface responses


It is well known that there exists a poor convergence of responses in the vicinity of the surface
of the top layer. This is due to the fact that the integrand in Equation (6) becomes highly oscil-
latory at these locations, as shown in Figure 4. As the responses at shallow depths have valuable
importance, a good accuracy and convergence at these locations are required. In JULEA, for
instance, a minimum depth of (1/5)∗ load radius was specified, above which it is not possible
to get response evaluations (Khazanovich & Wang, 2007). In LEAF, a layered elastic program
for Airport pavements, a coordinate transformation using selected offset values was applied to
speed up the convergence and to improve overflow and underflow problems. This procedure
also improved the near-surface accuracy of the responses. In the work of Maina and Matsui
(2005), a Richardson’s extrapolation was employed to improve the near-surface convergence as
well as the accuracy of responses. According to this approach the integral in Equation (6) is
204 S. Erlingsson and A.W. Ahmed

100

80
R=0
60 R = 100 cm

40

Integrand
20

–20

–40

–60
0 50 100 150 200
Hankel parameter m

Figure 4. The integrand in Equation (6) for two radial locations near the surface of the top layer.

modified as  ∞
Sc
J1 (mα)e−cm dm,
2
S = lim qα (13)
c→0 0 m
where c = 2k , k = 10, 11, 12, 13, . . . , 16.
In another approach to improve the near-surface convergence, Khazanovich and Wang (2007)
introduced a method that deducts an elastic half-space solution with the same material properties
as the top layer and employed a superposition of the elastic half-space solution from tabulated
values. According to their suggestion, the responses at the top layer can be expressed as

R = (R − Rhalf-space ) + Rhalf-space , (14)

where R denotes the response of the top layer and Rhalf -space denotes an elastic half-space solution
with the same material properties as the top layer.
In this paper, the method using Richardson’s extrapolation, Equation (13) was utilised to
improve the performance of near-surface responses and the method in Equation (14) was used
for evaluation purposes.

6. Comparison and evaluation of the different approaches with other programs


The ERAPAVE multilayer elastic program has been implemented in C++. To evaluate the
responses obtained from the program, several multilayer systems subjected to a single circular
distributed loading were analysed. The number of layers varied from 3 to 15 with layer stiffness
values ranging between 50 and 50,000 MPa. Several locations in the pavement structures, exclud-
ing the near surface of the top layers, were considered. Figures 5–8 present the comparison of the
ERAPAVE program with the KENPAVE and the WinJulea programs.
The results shown in Figures 5–8 indicate that there was excellent agreement between the
developed program and KENPAVE and WinJulea. The small shift between WinJulea and the
ERAPAVE program was due to unit conversion.
Figure 9 shows the comparison of the vertical stress in kilopascals for the near-surface responses
using the method of Richardson’s extrapolation, Equation (13), and the Khazanovich and Wang
(2007) approach shown in Equation (14). Here, it was assumed that the solution given by the
latter was the correct solution.
Road Materials and Pavement Design 205
800 700

700 600
ERAPAVE vertical stress [kPa]

600

ERAPAVE vetical stress [kPa]


500

500
400
400
300
300
200
200

100
100

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
KENPAVE vetical stress [kPa] WinJulea vertical stress [kPa]

Figure 5. Comparison of vertical stress from ERAPAVE with KENPAVE and WinJulea.

1600 800

1200
400
ERAPAVE radial stress [kPa]
ERAPAVE radial stress [kPa]

800
0
400

0 –400

–400
–800

–800
–1200
–1200

–1600 –1600
–1600 –1200 –800 –400 0 400 800 1200 1600 –1600 –1200 –800 –400 0 400 800
KENPAVE radial stress [kPa] WinJulea radial stress [kPa]

Figure 6. Comparison of radial stress from ERAPAVE with KENPAVE and WinJulea.

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6
ERAPAVE vertical strain [mill–strain]

ERAPAVE vertical strain [mill–strain]

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

0.2
0.1

0.0 0.1

–0.1 0.0
–0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
KENPAVE vertical strain [mill–strain] WinJulea vertical strain [mill–strain]

Figure 7. Comparison of vertical strain from ERAPAVE with KENPAVE and WinJulea.
206 S. Erlingsson and A.W. Ahmed
0.04 0.04

ERAPAVE vertical displacement [cm]

ERAPAVE vertical displacement [cm]


0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
KENPAVE vertical displacement [cm] WinJulea vertical displacement [cm]

Figure 8. Comparison of vertical displacement from ERAPAVE with KENPAVE and WinJulea.

800

700
Solution based on Rechardson's

600
y = 1.0043x
2
500 R = 0.999
Extrapolation

400

300

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Solution based on Khazanovich and Wang

Figure 9. Comparison of near-surface vertical stresses for the top layer using Khazanovich and Wang, and
Richardson’s extrapolation’s.

As can be observed from Figure 9, the near-surface responses obtained using Richardson’s
extrapolation were verified using the method of Khazanovich and Wang (2007), Equation (14).
For the solution of elastic half-space in Equation (14), a closed-form solution was used for
locations on the axis of symmetry (at the centre of the load), and the table of stresses by Ahlvin
and Ulery (1962) was used for other radial locations. A very good agreement between the two
approaches was obtained.
The problem of convergence in the near-surface response is illustrated in Figure 10. This figure
presents the comparison of the vertical and radial stresses for a typical four-layer structure in the
vicinity of the surface of the top layer. A circular distributed loading with contact pressure of
800 kPa and contact radius of 15 cm was used. The responses from WinJulea were restricted to
the surface and below to a depth of 3 cm.
From Figure 10 it can be observed that the results obtained from the ERAPAVE program were
more stable and exceeded the accuracy of the other two programs.
Road Materials and Pavement Design 207

Vertical stress [kPa] Radial stress [kPa]


500 600 700 800 900 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
0
0
1600 1800 2000 2200
750 800 850
0
0
0.5

2 2
1
1

Depth [cm]
Depth [cm]

4 4 ERAPAVE
ERAPAVE
KENPAVE KENPAVE

WinJulea WinJulea

6 6

Figure 10. Vertical and radial stresses for depths near the surface of the top layer under axis of symmetry
for single-wheel loading.

7. Comparison of speed of convergence


The performance of the ERAPAVE program was compared with KENPAVE and WinJulea by
analysing a 15-layer structure several times. Figure 11 presents the comparison of the elapsed
time, to carry out the response analysis, of the three programs. A computer with Intel Core Duo
CPU of 2.53 GHz and RAM of 2.96 GB specifications was used for the analysis.
Figure 11 shows that the ERAPAVE program has a much improved performance compared
with the other two programs, especially for a large number of evaluation points.

8. Multiple wheel loading and stress dependency of unbound materials


The procedures discussed in the preceding sections were valid for axisymmetric loading, a typical
situation underneath a single-axle and single-wheel loading. However, pavements in general are
subjected to mixed traffic, with different wheel and axle configurations; hence, in ERAPAVE for
such cases the axisymmetric analysis was easily extended to multiple wheel loading situations

WinJulea
4 KENPAVE
ERAPAVE
Time [Sec]

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Number of evaluation points

Figure 11. Comparison of the performance of ERAPAVE with KENPAVE and WinJulea.
208 S. Erlingsson and A.W. Ahmed

1 2 P = 60 kN
p = 800 kPa
-3
Strain z [10 ]
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0
8 cm AC, E = 5000 MPa, = 0.35
10
BC, k1 = 2400, k2 = 0.5, k3 = 0
15 cm = 0.35
20

Depth [cm]
ERAPAVE 1
ERAPAVE 2
30 cm Sb, E = 200 MPa, = 0.35 30 KENPAVE 1
KENPAVE 2

40

50
Sg, E = 100 MPa, = 0.35

60

Figure 12. Comparison of vertical strain from the nonlinear analysis of ERAPAVE and KENPAVE at
two profiles (1 and 2). AC, BC, Sb and Sg denote asphalt concrete, base course, subbase and subgrade,
respectively, P denotes wheel loading and p is the inflation pressure.

through the superposition principle which holds true for the linear elastic analysis. A detailed
description of the superposition procedure can be found in Huang (2004).
In addition to linear elastic analysis, a nonlinear module has also been included in the ERAPAVE
program, which takes the stress dependency of unbound materials into account by using the model
given by (ARA, 2004; Uzan, 1985)
 k 2  k 3
3p τoct
Mr = k1 pa +1 , (15)
pa pa
where Mr denotes the resilient modulus, p denotes hydrostatic stress, which also includes the self-
weight of the material and the lateral earth pressure and is given as p = (σkk + (1 + 2ko )γ z)/3,
using the summation convention, where σkk is the normal stress, k0 is the coefficient of lateral
earth pressure, γ is the unit weight of the material and z is the depth, pa is the atmospheric pressure
(100 kPa); k1 , k2 and k3 are regression constants and τoct is the octahedral shear stress.
The ERAPAVE program automatically divides the nonlinear layer into the desired number of
sub-layers and an iterative procedure was employed to determine the nonlinear stiffness for the
sub-layers. Figure 12 illustrates the comparison of the nonlinear responses with the KENPAVE
program.
Figure 12 shows that an excellent agreement was obtained between the two programs. Similar
observations have been obtained for other strain components as well as stresses and displacements.
The ERAPAVE code has been successfully used to study the response behaviour of heavy vehi-
cle simulator tested structures with comparisons with measured responses (Ahmed & Erlingsson,
2012; Erlingsson, 2012).

9. Discussions and conclusions


This paper reports the development of a layered elastic program based on the Burmister theory.
Considerable efforts were made to improve the performance of the program by computing the stress
Road Materials and Pavement Design 209

coefficients at selected Hankel parameters and using piecewise linear interpolation to estimate
the coefficients for other values of the Hankel parameters. In addition Richardson’s extrapolation
was employed to improve the performance of near-surface responses.
A comprehensive verification of the program using two frequently used layered elastic pro-
grams, KENPAVE and WinJulea, was performed and the accuracy obtained was excellent. The
comparison of the performance of the three programs revealed that the ERAPAVE program has
an improved performance, especially for a larger number of evaluation points.
Moreover, a nonlinear module was introduced into the program to take stress-dependent
behaviour of unbound materials into account. The superposition principle was used to handle mul-
tiple wheels loading. The comparison of the nonlinear responses from ERAPAVE with KENPAVE
revealed a good agreement between the two programs.
As has been shown by several researchers, solutions of linear viscoelastic problems can be
derived from the corresponding linear elastic solutions using elastic–viscoelastic correspon-
dence principle (Chou, 1969; Huang, 2004; Kim, 2011). Thus, future work for this study will
employ this concept to extend the ERAPAVE layered elastic solutions to solve viscoelastic prob-
lems. Furthermore, non-uniform tyre pressure will to some extent also be incorporated in the
code through superposition principle. Moreover, the future work will encompass incorporating
the ERAPAVE code into an M-E performance prediction scheme. The accuracy and the per-
formance of the program make it preferable for such applications as the response calculations
are performed several times for different wheel load configurations and different environmental
conditions.

References
Acum, W. E. A., & Fox, L. (1951). Computation of load stresses in a three-layered elastic system.
Geotechnique, 2(4), 293–300.
Ahlvin, R. G., & Ulery, H. H. (1962). Tabulated values for determining the complete pattern of stresses,
strains and deflections beneath a uniform circular load on a homogeneous half space (pp. 1–13).
Highway Research Board Bulletin 342. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board.
Ahmed, A. W., & Erlingsson, S. (2012). Modeling of flexible pavement structure behaviour – comparisons
with HVS measurements. In D. Jones, J. Harvey, A. Mateos, & I. Al-Qadi, (Eds.), Advances in pavement
design through full-scale accelerated pavement testing(pp. 493–503). New York: CRC Press.
ARA. (2004). Guide for the mechanistic empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures
(Report 1-37A). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Bufler, H. (1971). Theory of elasticity of a multilayered medium. Journal of Elasticity, 1(2), 125–143.
Burmister, D. M. (1943). The theory of stresses and displacements in layered system and application to
the design of airport runways. Proceedings of the Highway Research Board (Vol. 23, pp. 126–148).
Washington, DC.
Burmister, D. M. (1945). The general theory of stresses and displacements in layered soil system. Journal
of Applied Physics, 16(2), 89–96, 16(3), 126–127, 16(5), 296–302.
Chou, Y. T. (1969). General theory of stresses and displacements in elastic and viscoelastic layered systems
(Final Report WESMPM698). Vicksburg, MS: Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Erlingsson, S. (2012). Rutting development in a flexible pavement structure. Road Materials and Pavement
Design, 13(2), 218–234. doi:10.1080/14680629.2012.682383
Hayhoe, G. F. (2002, May). LEAF – a new layered elastic computational program for federal aviation
administration pavement design and evaluation procedures. Federal aviation administration airport
technology transfer conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA.
Huang, Y. H. (1968). Stresses and displacements in nonlinear soil media. The Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Division, ASCE, 94(1), 1–19.
Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement analysis and design. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Jones, A. (1962). Tables of stresses in three layer elastic system (pp. 176–214). Highway Research Board
Bulletin, No. 342. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board.
Khazanovich, L., & Wang, Q. (2007). High-performance layered elastic analysis program. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2037, 63–75.
210 S. Erlingsson and A.W. Ahmed

Kim, J. (2011). General viscoelastic solutions for multilayered systems subjected to static and moving loads.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 23(7), 1007–1016.
Lukas, S. K., & Stone, H. A. (1994). Evaluating infinite integrals involving Bessel functions of arbitrary
order. Cambridge, MA: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University.
Maina, J., & Matsui, K. (2005). Elastic multi-layered analysis using DE-integration. Publications of the
Research institute for Mathematical Sciences, 41(5), 853–867.
Moler, C. (1980). Matlab user’s guide. Albuquerque: Department of Computer Science, University of New
Mexico.
Peattie, K. R. (1962). Stress and strain factors for three layered elastic systems (pp. 215–253). Highway
Research Board Bulletin, No. 342. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board.
Timoshenko, S., & Goodier, I. N. (1951). Theory of elasticity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Uzan, J. (1985) Characterization of granular materials (pp. 52–59). Transportation Research Record 1022.
Washington, DC: National Research Council
Van Cauwelaert, F. J. & Lequeux, D. (1986). Computer programs for the determination of stresses and
displacements in four layered structures. Vicksburg, MS: Water Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
Van Cauwelaert, F. J. (2003). Pavement design and evaluation: The required mathematics and its application.
Brussels: Federation of the Belgian Cement Industry.
Verstraeten, J. (1967, August). Stresses and Displacements in Elastic Layered Systems (pp. 223–238). 2nd
International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). (2005). Everseries user’s guide: Pavement anal-
ysis computer software and case studies. Retrived from: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0C02
BB7B-C345-4958-AA08-089E5E512B96/0/EverseriesUserGuidePart1.pdf
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai