Evaluating Flexible Pavement Rut Damage

Caused by Multiple Axle and Truck

Configurations
Hassan Salama, Ph.D
Research associate

Karim Chatti, Ph.D

Associate professor

Michigan State University

Background
Newly proposed Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide (M-E PDG) in
the U.S. does away with the ESAL
concept and uses instead axle load
spectra to calculate pavement damage
Therefore, it is important to evaluate
pavement damage caused by multiple
axles.

Background ME-PDG Procedure

Sum the strain values ?

Ignore the strain rate ?

Background
Two approaches for rutting prediction
Rutting at surface of subgrade layer only
Asphalt Institute (AI) model (Shook et al., 1982)
Shell Petroleum model (Claussen et al., 1977)

Rutting contribution from all pavement layers

New M-E PDG (AC and unbound materials)
VESYS rutting model

p (n) = * e * n

VESYS Rutting Model

p = hAC AC ( ni )1 AC ( ei,AC ) + hbase base ( ni )1 base ( ei,base )

1- AC i =1
1- base i =1

SG K

1SG

+ hSG
n

(
)
(
)
ei,SG
i

1-SG i =1

= Total cumulative rut depth (mm),

= Subscript indicating axle group,

= Number of axle groups,

= Layer thickness for AC, combined base and subgrade layers, respectively (mm),

= Number of load applications,

= Compressive vertical elastic strain at the middle of the layers,

= Constant of proportionality between plastic and elastic strain, and

= Constant indicating the rate of rutting decrease as the number of load

applications increases.

PDPs

VESYS Rutting Model Calibration

The most likely solution for PDPs ( & )
obtained for 109 pavement sections within
the SPS-1 experiment based on the analysis
of transverse surface profile
(Salama et al, 2006 TRB publication)

Material properties, structural and climatic

data were introduced into the multiple linear
regression models
(Salama et al, 2006 TRB presentation)

Multiple Linear Regression Models for PDPs

AC

Base
SG

HMA = 5105.124* ( Strain )

0.555

* P101.013 *(VFA)0.58 *(MAA T )0.732

HMA = 6.746 * AC 4.102 * FI 0.213

base = 2.724*105 * modulus0.102 * Thickness0.066 * P2000.098 * GI 1.982

base = 7.1977 *103 * base6.256 * Thickness 0.808 *strain 0.809

SG = 1.385 105 * strain0.043 * GI 1.89 * PI 0.116 * D320.14 * FI 0.036 * wet days0.326

SG = 2.575 * 10 63 * mod ulus 2.41 * strain 0.764 * GI 22.594 * PI 1.304

Analysis
Axle and Truck configurations used in the analysis

Pavement cross-sections and moduli

Strain Pulses under Multiple Axles

KENLAYER (Huang, 1993)
Single axle
Multiple axle

13 kips & tire pressure 100 psi

Multiple of 13 kips & spacing 42

Strain Pulses for Thick Pavement

Strain

1.0E-04

AC layer

5.0E-05
0.0E+00
0

200

400

600

800

Distance, in

Strain

1.5E-04
1.0E-04

Base layer

5.0E-05
0.0E+00
0

200

400

600

800

Distance, in
1.5E-04
Strain

8-axle group

1.5E-04

1.0E-04

SG1 layer

5.0E-05
0.0E+00
0

200

400
Distance, in

600

800

2.5E-04
2.0E-04
1.5E-04
1.0E-04
5.0E-05
0.0E+00
-5.0E-05

AC layer
0

200

400

600

800

Strain

Distance, in
2.5E-04
2.0E-04
1.5E-04
1.0E-04
5.0E-05
0.0E+00
-5.0E-05

Base layer
0

200

400

600

800

Distance, in

Strain

8-axle group

Strain

Strain Pulses for Thin Pavement

2.5E-04
2.0E-04
1.5E-04
1.0E-04
5.0E-05
0.0E+00
-5.0E-05

SG1 layer
0

200

400
Distance, in

600

800

Calculated PDPs
The PDPs for the two cross-sections were calculated
from the regression equations based on pavement layer
thicknesses and moduli
Other variables were assumed at the mean values of
the range used to develop the regression equations

Rut Damage
Procedure 1- strain values underneath each axle within an
axle group
Procedure 2- strain values underneath the axles and
outside the axle group until the strain becomes negligible
5.0E-04

Strain

4.0E-04
Strain outside the axles

3.0E-04

Strain outside the axles

Strain underneath the axles

2.0E-04
1.0E-04
0.0E+00
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Distance, in

Strain influence curve under an 8-axle group

800

Results
1.2

As an example
Rut depth, in

Total and per layer rut

depth for axles due to
one million repetitions

AC

1.0

Base

SG

Total

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Stan.-Axle

Single

Tandem

Tridem

Axle configurations

Rut depth due to a given axle group

AF =
Rut depth due to a single axle

Rut depth due to a given truck

TF =
Rut depth due to a single axle

Quad

8-axles

Procedure 2
9.0

9.0
8.0

AC

Base

SG

Axle factor .

Axle factor .

5.0
4.0
3.0

SG

Total

6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0

2.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

0.0
Single

Tandem

Tridem

Quad

8-axles

0.0
Single

Tandem

Tridem

Quad

8-axles

Axle configurations

Axle configurations

Axle factors - section 1

Axle factors - section 2

14.0

AC

Base

SG

Total

12.0
Truck factor .

12.0
Truck factor .

Base

7.0

6.0

14.0

AC

8.0

Total

7.0

10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0

AC

Base

SG

Total

10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0

2.0

0.0

0.0
S5

S1T2

S1T2Tr2

S3T2Q1

S1T1E1

Ttruck configurations

Truck factor - section 1

S5

S1T2

S1T2Tr2

S3T2Q1

S1T1E1

Truck configurations

Truck factor- section 2

Laboratory Results

Sample preparation

Unconfined cyclic
compression load test set up

Loading and unloading time

Stress

Single axle
tS

Stress

tS

9 tS

tS

9 tS

time

9 tS

Interaction = 1/2
2

Tandem axle

1
Sustain stress

9 tT

tT

tT

9 tT

tT

9 tT

time

Stress

Quad axle
tQ

9 tQ

tQ

9 tQ

tQ

9 tQ

time

Stress

Truck S1T1E1
tS1T1E1

9 tS1T1E1

tS1T1E1

time

Laboratory Axle Factor

1
AF =

10

Damage of the axle group N f axle group N f single axle

=
=
1
Damage of the single axle
N f axle group
N f single axle

Axle factor

9
8

Identity line

7
6
5
4
3

R = 0.98

2
1
0
0

4
5
6
Axle configuration

Near proportionality of rut damage for multiple axles

10

Laboratory Axle factors

10

10

9
8

9
8

Identity line

Identity line

7
Axle factor

Axle factor

7
6
5
4

6
5
4

R = 0.98

3
2

R = 0.97

0
0

4
5
6
Axle configuration

Fatigue

10

4
5
6
Axle configuration

Rutting

10

Comparison with M-E PDG Prediction

Tandem Axle
2.5

Fatigue

Rutting

1.5
1.0
0.5

Method of calculating Axle Factor

M-E PDG
Software

M-E PDG
procedure

Lab

M-E PDG
Software

M-E PDG
procedure

0.0
Lab

Axle Factor

2.0

Laboratory Truck Factor

1
Damage of the truck
=
Damage of the single axle

N f truck
1

11-axles

S3T2Q1

S3T2Q1

S1T2Tr2

S1T2Tr2

S1T2

S1T2

S5

5-axles

S1T1E1

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
S5

Truck factor

N f single axle

N f single axle
N f truck

S1T1E1

TF =

Truck configurations

variable rest periods between axle groups affect the cumulative rut
damage differently

Conclusions
There is little to no interaction between
axles for vertical strains within the AC layer
The interaction between axles in the base
layer increases with increasing AC layer
thickness
There is always high interaction between
axles in the subgrade layer vertical strain
response

Conclusions
Mechanistically, Rutting damage is
proportional to the number of axles within
an axle group or truck
Laboratory results confirmed the near
proportionality of rut damage for multiple
axles
For trucks, the variable rest periods
between axle groups appear to affect the
cumulative rut damage differently

Thank you!
Any questions?