Workshop on Heavy Duty Pavement Design

May 2009

Leigh Wardle
rev. May 2009
 Seminar Outline
„ History of Port Pavement Design Methods
„ British Ports Association (1986, 1996)
„ CIRCLY/APSDS (Mincad Systems, 1990+)
„ ASCE Port and Intermodal Yard Pavement Design Guide (Draft)
„ HIPAVE (2005+)
„ Heavy Duty Industrial Pavement Design Guide
„ Overview of HIPAVE capabilities
„ Automation of Vehicle Loads
„ Automation of Payload Distributions
„ Parametric and Economic Analysis
„ Lateral Vehicle Wander
„ Dynamic Load Factors
„ Heavy Duty Industrial Pavement Design Guide
„ Overview
„ Modelling For Heavy Loads
„ Asphalt Characterization
„ Case Studies
„ Crawford Street intermodal container terminal
(Hamilton, New Zealand).
 Workshop Outline
„ Review of Mechanistic Pavement Design Theory
„ Layered Elastic Model
„ Loading
„ Critical Strains
„ Performance Criteria – Fatigue and Rutting
„ Cumulative Damage Factor
„ Unbound Granular Materials - Sublayering
„ Heavy Duty Industrial Pavement Design Guide
„ Introduction to HIPAVE User Interface
„ Demonstration of job assembly from existing
components
„ How to modify HIPAVE databases
„ Workshop exercises
„ Review workshop exercises
„ Further Research
History of Port Pavement Design Methods
 Development of Mechanistic
Pavement Analysis
Power, HIPAVE 2005++
Sophistication
•Integrated
CIRCLY/APSDS
•Multi-Layer
1995++ •Automatic vehicle loads
•Integrated
•Multi-Layer •Payload distributions
BPA Guide 1988 •Rigorous Wander
•Actual vehicle layouts
•Multi-Layer •mostly automatic
•Pass/Coverage
FAA Guide 1978 •Load equivalency
(ESA’s, PAWL’s)
Single Layer •High manual effort
+ matl. equivalency
Pass/Coverage
Load equivalency
(ESA’s, PAWL’s) Year

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Pavement Design Methods for
Ports And Container Terminals

„ design methods for highways

„ e.g. new Austroads Pavement Design Guide (2004)
„ not appropriate due to heavy axle loads
„ British Ports Association Guide (3rd edition,
1996)
„ developed prior to personal computers being commonplace
„ simplifying approximations no longer justified
„ “Equivalent” wheel loads
„ “wheel proximity factors”
„ “Equivalent” materials
Pavement Design Methods for
Ports And Container Terminals

„ Layered elastic models (e.g. CIRCLY, APSDS)

„ adequately represent flexible pavements
„ bypass approximations involving “Equivalent” wheel loads by
using actual wheel locations
„ CIRCLY and APSDS- Good, but limited for
industrial pavements…
„ used very successfully for heavy duty industrial pavements
„ unwieldy data input – very difficult to model more than a few
payloads per vehicle
 HIPAVE

„ Heavy Industrial PAVEment design

„ container-specific version combining features of
CIRCLY and APSDS
„ commercially released 2005
„ expedites analysis of all vehicle types and
detailed payload distributions
„ designed to model each combination of vehicle
type and container load
Development of APSDS/HIPAVE
wander model
„ 1987:
Concept paper by
Professor Carl Monismith
„ 1993:
Initial prototype developed by
Ian Rickards, Pioneer Road Services
„ Based on CIRCLY Layered Elastic Analysis program (Wardle,
1977)
„ 1995:
APSDS commercial release
„ 2005:
HIPAVE commercial release
Overview of HIPAVE capabilities
 Typical HIPAVE problem

Asphalt 1

Granular
Material
Cemented
2
Material

Subgrade 3 3

1 Tensile strain at bottom of asphalt

2 Tensile strain at bottom of cemented material
3 Vertical strain at top of subgrade
 Sample Traffic Mix
Vehicle Model A Vehicle Model A – Payload Distribution
8000
7000
6000
5000

Count
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2.5 4 6 8.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5
Payload (tonnes)

Vehicle Model B Vehicle Model B – Payload Distribution

8000
7000
6000
5000
Count

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Cumulative Damage Factor
(single load case)

„ The Cumulative Damage Factor is defined by:

n
CDF =
N
„ n is the number of repetitions of the load
„ N is the ‘allowable’ repetitions of the response
parameter that would cause failure
 Cumulative Damage Factor

„ If CDF = 1.0

the system has reached its design life

 Cumulative Damage Factor

„ If CDF < 1.0

system has excess capacity and the

CDF represents proportion of life consumed.

 Cumulative Damage Factor

„ If CDF > 1.0

the system ‘fails’ before all of the design traffic

has been applied.
Total Cumulative Damage Factor

„ The Total Cumulative Damage Factor is defined

by:
M Nk
CDF total = ∑ ∑ CDF kj
k =1 j =1

„ k is summed over M vehicle models

„ For each vehicle model no. k, there are Nk
different payloads
HIPAVE:
Sample Damage Factor vs. Container Mass
HIPAVE:
Sample Damage Factor vs. Distance
Automating Calculation of Wheel
Loads for Container Vehicles…
 Comprehensive range of vehicle types

Forklift, Mast Lift Tractor-Trailers, Trucks

Straddle Carriers

Reach Stackers Rubber Tyred Gantry

Standard Vehicle Library –
automatically updated from webserver

vehicle
Specs
.

XML
Internet

Standard Vehicle Library

Mincad
webserver
Fork Lift:
Fork Lift: Axle Load vs. Container Mass

Kalmar Forklift DCD370-12

HIPAVE: Axle Load vs. Container Mass
Straddle Carrier
 Straddle Carrier

Straddle Carrier characteristics conveniently specified

in terms of 4 simple parameters…
HIPAVE: Custom Payload Distribution

8000
7000
6000
5000

Count
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2.5 4 6 8.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5
Payload (tonnes)
 Standard Container Weight Distribution
e.g. British Ports Association (1996) - 40 ft containers
Normalized Frequency

Cumulative Proportion
HIPAVE: Standard Payload Distribution

e.g. British Ports Association (1996) - 40 ft containers

Can be used in multiple

Traffic Spectrums
Site-specific Container Mass distribution

(1988)

(2000)
 Lateral Vehicle Wander

„A critical design parameter

„A normal distribution is assumed
„Standard Deviation of wander
distribution can vary with vehicle
type
 Vehicle Wander
0.0005

0.0004

Taxiway
Frequency

0.0003 (SD = 800 mm)

0.0002
Runway
(SD = 1600 mm)
0.0001

0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
X (mm) Centreline
 Lateral Wander
4500
Xwdel (=100 mm)
4000

Total Movements = 100,000

3500
Standard Deviation = 1000 mm
Movements in Slot

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
0

20

40

60

80
00

80

60

40

20

00

80

60

40

20

00

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30
-8

-6

-4

-2
-3

-2

-2

-2
-2

-2

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

Lateral Position (mm) Xwmax

(=3000 mm)
 Effect of wander on thickness

Sub-base thickness
Wander: Runway Taxiway Docking bay
(SD = 1600 mm) (SD = 800 mm) (SD = 200 mm)

Thickness: 590 mm 630 mm 700 mm

 Dynamic Load Factors

„ Dynamic Load Factors used by the British Ports

Association Design Guide
„ Simple way to account for effects of dynamic
loading from:
„cornering, accelerating, braking and surface
uneveness.
„ These simple multipliers are applied to the design
loads
„ Can vary with each axle
„ HIPAVE lets you use your own values
Case study

„ Crawford Street intermodal container terminal

(Hamilton, New Zealand)
„ Designed with HIPAVE
„ operated mostly with fork lifts, supported by
tractor-trailers
Crawford Street intermodal container terminal
Container Handling Equipment

Container Handling by Kalmar DCD450 Container Lift Trucks

Container
Max. Weight:
41 tonnes

Max. Axle Load

95 tonnes
Crawford Street intermodal container terminal

Total Machine Movements over 20 years

Load Type Movements Over 20 Years

Trucks, Highway Legal 160,000

No Load on Kalmar 876,000

Empty Containers on 385,000

Kalmar
22.5 Tonne Curtain Sided 20,000
Containers on Kalmar
25 Tonne Containers on 206,000
Kalmar
41 Tonne Containers on 265,000
Kalmar
 Crawford Street intermodal container terminal
Pavement Material Properties for Subgrade Strain Model
Isotropic
Poisson’s Thickness
Layer Description Modulus
Ratio (mm)
(MPa)

Asphalt Asphaltic 1,742 0.4 110

Concrete AC20

Asphalt Stone Mastic 1,500 0.4 65

Asphalt SMA20

Basecourse Lime Modified 689.6 0.3 915

AP65 with Barker-
Basecourse Brabston
sublayering
Subbase Graded Sand 120 0.4 ≥ 510mm
with sublayering

Subgrade CBR 4 40 0.4 Infinite

Results - HIPAVE Analysis

Subgrade Damage Factor vs. lateral offset

Front tyres
 Results - HIPAVE Analysis

“Spectral” Damage graph: Subgrade Damage Factor vs. container load

Front axle
Results - HIPAVE Analysis
SMA20 layer Damage Factor vs. lateral offset

Front tyres
 Results - HIPAVE Analysis
“Spectral” Damage graph: SMA20 layer Damage Factor vs. container load

Rear axle

Front axle

* assumes equal repetitions for each payload

Advanced HIPAVE 5.0 features

Cost Calculation
+
Automatic Parametric Analysis
=
A new powerful tool for pavement cost
optimization
Cost Calculation

Total Cost
Cost Calculation

Entry of Unit Material Costs

 Automatic Parametric Analysis

„ Automatically loop through one or two thickness

ranges
„ Simultaneously design the thickness of another
layer
„ Lets you fine-tune layer thicknesses to minimize
construction and maintenance costs
 Cost Optimization Case Study

„ Many thickness combinations are valid designs

„ Unit Material Costs are the missing dimension…..
 Cost Optimization Example

Thickness Unit Cost

T1 = 50 mm Asphalt: Asphalt- 3000 MPa, VB=11% $240 / m3

T2 = ? Base $60 / m3

T3 = ? Sub-base $20 / m3

Subgrade, CBR = 6
 Cost Optimization Case Study
Summary of Results

Layer 3 Layer 2 Total Cost

Thickness Thickness Max. CDF ($/m2)
700 445 1.0 52.7

800 368 1.0 50.1

900 289 1.0 47.4

1000 275 1.0 48.5

1100 275 1.0 50.5

Minimum Cost
Cost Optimization:
How it works….

Automatically generated plot:

Total Cost vs. Layer 3 Thickness

Analysed to resolution of 10 mm

Minimum Total Cost

 HIPAVE 5 Cost Optimization:
How it works….
„ Automatically generated plot: Max. CDF vs. Layer 2 Thickness

Max Damage Factor = 1.0

Heavy Duty Industrial
Pavement Design Guide
Key Design Model Reality Issues?

How do I model the

container mass distribution?

How many wheels do I need to model?

How do I model the

asphalt layers?
How do I model the
unbound granular layers?
How do I model the
rutting of the subgrade?
Heavy Duty Industrial
Pavement Design Guide

Collaborative effort:
„ Leigh Wardle - Mincad Systems
„ Ian Rickards - Pioneer Road Services
Pty Ltd (Melbourne, Australia)
„ John Lancaster – VicRoads
(Melbourne, Australia)
„ Dr. Susan Tighe
(Dept. Civil Engineering, University of
Waterloo, Canada).
Review of Pavement Design
using Mechanistic Analysis
Mechanistic Pavement Design

DESIGN
TRAFFIC

SUBGRADE
EVALUATION

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

PAVEMENT
MATERIALS

Ref. Austroads Pavement Design Manual, P. 2.1

 Numerical Model (HIPAVE)

Asphalt 1

Granular
Material
Cemented
2
Material

Subgrade 3 3

1 Tensile strain at bottom of asphalt

2 Tensile strain at bottom of cemented material
3 Vertical strain at top of subgrade
 Alternative damage indicators

Asphalt

Base Course/
Subbase Course
Vertical strain at
top of subgrade Subgrade

CBR = 15
 Alternative damage indicators

Asphalt
Tensile strain at
Unbound granular material
base of asphalt
Cemented granular material
Tensile strain at
base of Subgrade
cemented
material
 Locations of critical strains

Asphalt 1

Granular
Material
Cemented
2
Material

Subgrade 3 3

1 Tensile strain at bottom of asphalt

2 Tensile strain at bottom of cemented material
3 Vertical strain at top of subgrade
 Performance/Damage Models

„ Typically of the form:

F k IK b
N =
H ε
repetitions to failure critical strain
 Damage Factor

„ The damage factor for the i-th loading is defined

as ni

Ni
„ where ni is the number of repetitions of the load,
and
Ni is the ‘allowable’ repetitions of the response
parameter that would cause failure.
Cumulative Damage Factor

„ The Cumulative Damage Factor is defined by:

ni
CDF =
∑N
i

„ i is summed over mix of loads,

e.g. different container vehicles
 TO DO

Thickness Design Iteration

„ increase/decrease pavement thickness until

Max. (of all materials) CDF = 1.0

Every damage indicator is used to find Max. CDF:

„ Asphalt tensile strain(s)
„ Cemented granular tensile strain
„ Subgrade compressive strain
„ Life is determined by weakest link
 Design Traffic:
n repetitions

Layered
System
Asphalt

,
critical strain ε
Base Course/
Subbase Course

Subgrade
Allowable
repetitions to failure

b
Performance N = F εI
k
Relationship:
H K
Damage (CDF) = n
N
Heavy Duty Industrial
Pavement Design Guide
Key Design Model Reality Issues?

How do I model the

container mass distribution?

How many wheels do I need to model?

How do I model the

asphalt layers?
How do I model the
unbound granular layers?
How do I model the
rutting of the subgrade?
 Design Guide – Modelling Topics

„ How many wheels?

„ Back-Analysis of Full Scale Tests
„ Modelling Material Response
„ Asphalt and RMA (Resin Modified Asphalt)
„ Unbound Granular
„ Cement Treated
„ Subgrade
„ Container Mass Distribution – how much detail?
„ The Guide attempts to answer these questions
„ Draws on 15+ years research
 Sources of Full Scale Test Data

„ Full-Scale/Accelerated Pavement Testing–

Large Aircraft
„ Multiple Wheel Heavy Gear Load Tests (MWHGLT) conducted
in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Ahlvin et al., 1971).
„ National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF)
„ U.S Government and Boeing sponsored project, cost
about US$70 million
„ Test track 275 metres long by 18 metres wide.
„ http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/naptf/
 Pavement Layer Modelling For
Heavy Loads

„ rutting criteria developed from aircraft test

pavements
„ wheel loads of up to 27 tonnes
„ comparable to typical loads at ports, container terminals and
on mine haul roads
„ more appropriate than criterion for highway loadings
(e.g. Austroads , 2004).
 Calibration of Model

„ All layers assumed Isotropic

„ Barker-Brabston sub-layering for Unbound Base
and Sub-base layers
„ Comprehensive range of Heavy Aircraft at
multiple traffic levels
„ Calibrated to FAA S-77-1 Design Method
(this is calibrated to full scale tests)
„ Outcome is subgrade rutting criterion
APSDS pavement thickness
vs. S77-1 method pavement thickness
1500

1400
APSDS Pavement Thickness (mm)

B757
1300
B747
1200
B737
1100 B717
1000 BAe146

900 A300
A320
800
A340
700
B767
600 (subgrade CBR = 6) MD11

500 S i 1
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
S77-1 Method Pavement Thickness (mm) Wardle et al (2001)
 Subgrade
Rutting criteria developed from aircraft test pavements:

The subgrade performance relationship:

b
⎡k ⎤
N =⎢ ⎥
⎣ε ⎦

where N = allowable repetitions

k = material constant
b = damage exponent of the material
ε = strain (unitless strain)

k and b vary with subgrade modulus (E)

k = 1.64 10-09 E3 - 4.31 10-07 E2 + 2.18 10-05 E + 0.00289
b = -2.12 10-07 E3 +8.38 10-4 E2 -0.0274 E +9.57 Wardle et al (2001)
 Subgrade

Subgrade - empirical relationship:

E (MPa) = 10.0 * CBR (%)

Dependence of performance
exponent (b) on subgrade modulus
26

24

22
b
⎡k ⎤
20 N =⎢ ⎥
18 ⎣ε ⎦
16
b

14

12

10
3 2
8 b = -2.12E-07 E + 0.000838 E - 0.0274 E + 9.57

4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
E (MPa)
Wardle et al (2001)
 Subgrade
Rutting criteria developed from aircraft test pavements
Subgrade 0.010000
Compressive
Strain (ε) Roads criterion (e.g. Austroads)
overestimates life
CURRENT by factor of 100 or more!
AUSTROAD
S
Esg 150

Esg 100 0.001000

Esg 70

Esg 40

Esg 20

0.000100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07
Tolerable Repetitions Of Strain
 Unbound Granular Materials
(Base and Sub-Base)

„ Granular materials are not linear elastic

„ Moduli are dependent on:
„ Stress level
„ Stiffness of overlying and underlying layers
 Pavement Layer Modelling For
Heavy Loads

„ specially developed models for unbound granular

materials
„ basecourse, sub-base and subgrade assumed isotropic
(Austroads assumes anisotropic)
„ basecourse and sub-base sublayers different from Austroads
(Barker and Brabston, 1975)
 Pavement Layer Modelling for
Heavy Loads

„ Barker-Brabston Sub-Layering
(developed by Barker-Brabston,1975)
„ as used by FAA and US Defence Design Methods
Barker-Brabston Sub-Layering
 Barker-Brabston Sub-Layering:
Example

95 mm Asphalt
102 mm ? Base Course

304 mm ? Subbase
Course

68.9 Subgrade

0 100 200 300 400

Modulus (MPa)
 Barker-Brabston Sub-Layering:
Example

95 mm Asphalt
102 mm 305 Base Course

152 mm 172
Subbase
Sub-layers
Course
152 mm 119

68.9 Subgrade

0 100 200 300 400

Modulus (MPa)
 Asphalt Modelling

„Speed of Loading
„Temperature
„Shell Equation
 Typical Modulus (MPa) of Asphalt
Traffic speed (km/h)

Temperature 0-5 km/hr 10-20 km/hr 50 km/hr

(°C)
10 12,500 15,000 16,300

15 9,600 12,600 14,000

20 6,900 9,900 11,200

25 4,600 7,300 8,600

30 2,800 5,500 6,200

35 1,700 3,400 4,300

Cement Treated Modelling
 Fatigue Criteria: Cement-Treated

„ The damage model is of the form:

k depends on
modulus etc.

F k I 12.0
N = RF
H εK
repetitions to failure horizontal tensile strain at
underside of layer

(Austroads 2004)
 Fatigue Criteria: Cement-Treated

12
⎡113 000 0.804 + 191⎤
N = ⎢ E ⎥
⎢ µε ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Austroads 2004
 Shell Asphalt Model

The Shell asphalt fatigue criterion is:

⎡ 6918 (0.856 VB + 1.08) ⎤

5

N =⎢ ⎥
⎣ Smix µε
0.36
⎦
where µε = maximum tensile strain (in units of microstrain),
Smix = asphalt mix stiffness (MPa)
VB = volume of binder in asphalt mix (%)

Austroads 2004
 Fatigue Criteria: Asphalt

„ The damage model is of the form:

k depends on
stiffness etc.

FkI 5.0
N =
H εK (Shell 19xx)

repetitions to failure horizontal tensile strain at

underside of layer
 Block Paver Modelling

„Can be modelled as component

of Flexible Pavement
„Elastic Properties:
„Modulus = 4000 Mpa
„Poisson’s Ratio = 0.3

British Ports Association Guide (3rd edition, 1996)

 Rigid Concrete Modelling

„ Rigid Concrete can be modelled using Layered

Elastic, e.g.
„FAA Airport Pavement program, LEDFAA
„British Ports Association Guide (3rd edition,
1996)
„ Fatigue Criteria
„e.g. Rollings (1988)
 Wheel Load Modelling

„How many wheels should you

include in the model?
Boeing 747
 Boeing 747
Conventional design systems
only consider one gear
 Boeing 747
Model can include ALL gears
 Conventional model (Isotropic)
Effect of gear interaction- isotropic
Single gear
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Damage

0.50
0.40 Single gear
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Dista nce from Ce ntre line
 Conventional model (Isotropic)
Effect of gear interaction- isotropic
Rear gear (4 gears included) Single gear
1.00
0.90
0.80 Front gear (4 gears included)
0.70
0.60
Damage

0.50 Front (16w)

0.40 Single gear
0.30
Rear (16w)
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Dista nce from Ce ntre line
 Damage Model:
vertical subgrade strain, isotropic layers
pavement thickness = 1710 mm

3
Rear gear (4 gears included)

Front gear (4 gears included)

2
Single gear
Damage

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Distance from Centreline

Wardle, L.J. and Rodway, B. (1995).

 How many wheels?

„ Use as few wheels as are necessary to model the

basic loading
„ Do not include any more wheels than that!
 Simplicity

„ "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the

irreducible basic elements as simple and as few
as possible without having to surrender the
adequate representation of a single datum of
experience"
Albert Einstein (1933)

„ often paraphrased as:

"Theories should be as simple as possible, but no
simpler."
Recommendation for container vehicles
Category - Unequal axle loads - e.g. Fork Lift, Mast Lift, Reach Stacker
Y
-1025 -1665 1025 1665
Modelled as
Component 1
Front axle 0 X
-1170 1170

Modelled as
Component 2

Rear axle 5715

Hyster Fork Lift:
Model: H40.00-16CH
Recommendation for container vehicles
Category - Equal axle loads - e.g. Straddle Carrier, Gantry

„ simply model one axle

„ calculate damage by multiplying by number of
axles
Introduction to HIPAVE User Interface
HIPAVE
Load Types
Units
Q u an tity

L en g th , D isp lacem en t mm

M o d u lu s, P ressu re MPa

S train m /m

F o rce N

M o m en t N .m m
 Global Coordinate System
Direction of Travel
Centreline of Vehicle

Wheels on axle
Y
O

Z
Coordinate System for Vehicles

0 X
Xmin, Xmax, Xdel

Xmin (= 0) Xdel (=100 mm) Xmax (= 3000 mm)

Results along line
Y

Direction of Travel

X
0

Xmin Xdel Xmax

Results points
Results on grid
Ymax Y

Ydel

Ymin

X
0

Xmin Xdel Xmax

Direction of Travel Results points

Alternative graphics options
HIPAVE:
Sample Damage Factor vs. Container Mass
HIPAVE:
Sample Damage Factor vs. Distance
Plot of surface displacements
Three-dimensional plots:
strain pulse under dual wheels

Vertical strain
 Three-dimensional plots:
strain pulse under dual wheels
Vertical strain
HIPAVE Toolbar

Save Job Print

Open Job Graphs

New Job Summary

Run Analysis Import

Options

Coordinates for Results Exit

Damage Calculation Details

Materials

Layered System

Standard Payload Distributions

Load Groups

Traffic

Job Title
To start a new job
To save a job
To open an existing job
To view/edit Job Title
Demonstration of job assembly
from existing components
 A HIPAVE job is defined by
3 blocks of data

Job

Coordinates for
Traffic Spectrum Layered System
Results
 The Traffic Spectrum and Layered
System link to

Job

Coordinates for
Traffic Spectrum Layered System
Results

Load Elastic Performance

Groups Properties Criteria
Vehicle Model Total Movements

HIPAVE: Standard Payload Distribution

e.g. British Ports Association (1996) - 40 ft containers

Can be used in multiple

Traffic Spectrums
HIPAVE: Standard Payload Distribution

e.g. British Ports Association (1996) - 40 ft containers

Can be used in multiple

Traffic Spectrums
HIPAVE: Custom Payload Distribution

8000
7000
6000
5000

Count
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2.5 4 6 8.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5
Payload (tonnes)
Xmin, Xmax, Xdel

Xmin (= 0) Xdel (=100 mm) Xmax (= 3000 mm)

„ When all data has been defined, you run the

analysis by clicking on
Progress bar - while analysis is running
Cumulative Damage Factor
How to use
Graphics
Options
Damage Factor vs. Distance

Front tyres
Damage Factor vs. Payload
Choose Layer here
Hover mouse over point:
to view data values etc.
Right mouse click to give Graph menu
Export menu:
Can export to Graphics and Text
(Metafile is best for grapics, e.g. Powerpoint,
MS Word)
Exercise 1
Exercise 1:
job assembly from existing components
„ Job Name: Exercise 1
„ Job Title: This is Exercise 1

„ Traffic Spectrum: Example for Cost Optimization - forklift -

simple custom payload distn.

„ Layered System: Example 1

„ Coordinates for results:

„ line of equally spaced points

„ xmin = 0, xmax = 3000, xdel = 100

„ Run Analysis
Exercise 1 - Answers
How to input
Traffic
Spectrums
 How HIPAVE handles Traffic
Distributions

„ You define your vehicle loadings and traffic in

detail
„ You define the anticipated repetitions over the
design period for each vehicle model. You also
define a payload distribution for each vehicle
model.
„ The following example illustrates the concepts.
Here there are two vehicle models, A and B. Each
vehicle model is assigned a payload distribution.
 Sample Traffic Mix
Vehicle Model A Vehicle Model A – Payload Distribution
8000
7000
6000
5000

Count
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2.5 4 6 8.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5
Payload (tonnes)

Vehicle Model B Vehicle Model B – Payload Distribution

8000
7000
6000
5000
Count

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Creating a new Traffic Spectrum
Maximum 20 characters
Maximum 72 characters
Table of Spectrum Components is now empty – we now start adding Components
Choose Vehicle Type Choose Manufacturer

Click on row to choose Model

Enter Total Movements for this Model
Characterizing Payload Distributions

„ Standard Payload Distributions

„ Re-usable across many Traffic Spectrums
„ Custom Payload Distributions
„ Used just for the current load case only
(Traffic Spectrum component)
Using a Standard Payload Distribution
Click Distribution Type. Choose Standard
Current Traffic Mix is shown here

Click to select different Traffic Mix

Example Standard Payload
Distribution
Defining a Custom Payload Distribution
Click Distribution Type. Choose Custom
Example Custom Payload Distribution
Payload (tonnes) Count

2.5 1000
4.0 200
6.0 300
8.5 200
12.5 100
17.5 1200
22.5 7500
27.5 1000
Click, then enter the Payload and Count.
 Standard Payload Distributions

„ re-usable across a range of vehicle models and

projects.
Click on row of interest – cursor goes to that row
Payload Distribution Details
 Dynamic Load Factors

„ Dynamic Load Factors are used in the British

Ports Association Design Guide (British Ports
Association, 1996)
„ Simple approach for taking account of dynamic
loads induced by cornering, accelerating, braking
and surface uneveness
„ they are simple multipliers applied to design
loads
„ can vary with each axle
 Straddle Carrier

Load Factors
for each axle: 1.5 X
1.2 X
0.8 X
0.5 X

Front
How to Use Wander
 3 Wander Options:
„ 3 Wander Options:
„ No Wander
„ Wander
„ Same for all vehicles
„ Different for each vehicle model
 Lateral Wander
4500
Xwdel (=100 mm)
4000

Total Movements = 100,000

3500
Standard Deviation = 1000 mm
Movements in Slot

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
0

20

40

60

80
00

80

60

40

20

00

80

60

40

20

00

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30
-8

-6

-4

-2
-3

-2

-2

-2
-2

-2

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

Lateral Position (mm) Xwmax

(=3000 mm)
 Lateral Wander Interval between slots
4500
Xwdel (=100 mm)
4000

Total Movements = 100,000

3500
Standard Deviation = 1000 mm
Movements in Slot 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 00
00
00
00

0
0
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Distance to “Tail”

20
40
60
80
20
00
80
60
40
20
00
-8
-6
-4
-2

10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
0
8
6
4
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1

Lateral Position (mm) Xwmax

(=3000 mm)
Different Wander for
each Vehicle Model
Exercise 2
 Exercise 2:

„ This is Case Study 1 from Heavy Duty Industrial

Pavement Design Guide
Exercise 2:
„ Job Name: Exercise 2
„ Job Title: This is Exercise 2

„ Layered System: Example 1

„ Coordinates for results:

„ line of equally spaced points

„ xmin = 0, xmax = 3000, xdel = 100
Step 1.

Enter Job Name

Enter Job Title

 Exercise 2 - Layered System
(this is already in database – called “Example 1”)

Thickness Modulus, E Poisson's

(mm) (MPa) Ratio

100 mm 2800 MPa 0.4 Asphalt

200 mm ? 0.3 Base Course

700 mm ? 0.3 Subbase

Course

60 MPa 0.4 Subgrade

(CBR=6)

∞
Step 2.

Make sure Example 1 is selected

This shows the pavement structure
for Example 1:
 Exercise 2 - Loading

„ One vehicle model only -

Kalmar ESC340 straddle
carrier (front cabin)
„ Unladen weight = 62 tonne
„ tyre pressure = 0.56 MPa
 Exercise 2 - Loading

„ Design vehicle movements are:

„ 900,000 loaded movements
„ 900,000 unloaded movements
„ Therefore 1,800,000 total movements
 Exercise 2 - Loading

Container Weight Distribution

Container Weight Containers

Range at this
(tonne) Range
(%)
0–5 15%
5 – 10 15%
10 – 15 10%
15 – 20 15%
20 – 25 25%
25– 30 20%

Note: Heaviest container weight in range assumed for all containers in range.
Exercise 2 - Loading

Container Weight Distribution

– including unloaded

Container Weight Containers

(tonne) (%)
0 50.0%
5 7.5%
10 7.5%
15 5.0%
20 7.5%
25 12.5%
30 10.0%
Step 3.

Enter New Traffic Spectrum

Step 4.

Choose this Kalmar Straddle Carrier Enter Total Movements

= 1.8E+6

Enter Container Weight

Distribution (given by
previous Table)–
including unloaded
„ Coordinates for results:

„ line of equally spaced points

„ xmin = 0, xmax = 3000, xdel = 100
Step 5

Enter these values

Background to Xmin, Xmax, Xdel

Xmin (= 0) Xdel (=100 mm) Xmax (= 3000 mm)

Step 6.
Step 7.

Make sure Subgrade is selected Make sure CDF vs. X is selected

Step 8.

Make sure Asphalt is selected Make sure CDF vs. X is selected

Step 9.

Make sure Asphalt is selected Make sure CDF vs. Payload is selected
Step 10.

Make sure Subgrade is selected Make sure CDF vs. Payload is selected
Exercise 3
 Exercise 3

„ Introduces the Advanced Features:

„Automatic Thickness Design
„Parametric Analysis
„Cost Optimization
„ Step 1.
„ Open the sample job "Example for Cost Optimization".
„ Run Analysis – check results against next slide
Exercise 3:
Initial Results:
Exercise 3a:
Manual Design Iteration
Exercise 3a:
Manual Design Iteration

„ Your goal is to determine the thickness of Layer No. 2 (Base) to

nearest 20 mm so that the Asphalt CDF and Subgrade CDF are just
less than 1.0
„ You will try a number of different Layer No. 2 thicknesses
(each one is to be a multiple of 20 mm)
„ Add an entry to this table for each configuration that you analyse:

Layer No. 2 Asphalt Subgrade

Thickness (mm) CDF CDF
200 0.44 0.185
Exercise 3a:
Manual Design iteration (cont.)

Correct answers:

??
Exercise 3b:
Automatic Thickness Design
Exercise 3b - How to use Automatic Thickness Design

1. Change
Thickness
to 800 mm
Exercise 3b - How to use Automatic Thickness Design

1. Tick box

2. Click on Layer No. 2 to select layer that you want to design

3. Click to re-analyse
Exercise 3b - How to use Automatic Thickness Design

Here is the thickness determined for

this example

The criterion used is Maximum CDF=1.0 (approx.)

This analysis takes a few seconds on a PC, but

takes longer if lots of load cases
Exercise 3c:
Cost Optimization
 Thickness Design (Comparison)

100 mm

$$$$$$$$$$ $$$ 365 mm

335 mm

100 mm
Step 1.

a. Un-check Design
Thickness….
b. Make sure Calculate Cost
is ticked.

c. Make sure Thicknesses are as shown here.

d. Click to re-analyse

e. Check that Total Cost is $62.00/m2

Step 2.

a. Tick box

b. Click on Layer No. 2 to select layer that you want to design

Step 3.

a. Tick Parametric Analysis

Sets number of Independent Variables

(i.e. number of Layers for which you are varying the thickness).

b. Change this to "3". (you are varying Layer 3 thickness).

c. Lets you specify the range of thicknesses to be used for Layer 3:

Make Layer 3 vary in thickness from 400 mm to 1000 mm in steps of 100 mm.
Enter the following values:
Minimum: 400, Maximum: 1000, Step: 100.
Step 4.

Click to re-analyse
Click to Graph Results
Graph: Total Cost vs. Thickness of Layer No. 3 (the independent variable)

Minimum Total Cost

(for layer thickness
resolved to 100 mm)
Cost Optimization –
Choice of Resolution

Resolution Thickness Total Cost

(Layer No. 2)
(mm) (mm) ($/m2)

100 700 57.35

20 700 57.35

10 700 57.35
Graph: Thickness of Design Layer (No. 2) vs. Thickness of Layer No. 3 (the independent variable)

Select “Thickness (Layer used for Thickness Design)”

Hover mouse over point:

to view Thickness of Layer 2.
Graph: CDF (asphalt layer) vs. Thickness of Layer No. 3 (the independent variable)

Select CDF (Select Layer =>) Select Asphalt…

Graph: CDF (subgrade) vs. Thickness of Layer No. 3 (the independent variable)

Select CDF (Select Layer =>) Select Subgrade…

 Asphalt CDF = 1.0
Asphalt CDF
Design dictated
by Asphalt CDF

Thickness (700 mm)

that gives
Minimum Cost

Subgrade CDF Subgrade CDF = 1.0

Design dictated by
Subgrade CDF
Preview of
Load Group
Data
 Choose Vehicle Type Choose Manufacturer

Click on row to choose Model

Unequal Axle Loads – e.g. Fork Lift

Axle Load vs.

Container
Mass
 Y
Front axle 0 X

Rear axle
Equal Axle Loads – e.g. Straddle Carrier

Basic Characteristics
- specified in terms of 4 simple parameters

Wheel Locations
How to create a
Layered System
 How to create a Layered System

Thickness Modulus, E Poisson's

(mm) (MPa) Ratio

100 mm 2800 MPa 0.4 Asphalt

200 mm ? MPa 0.3 Base Course

600 mm ? MPa 0.3 Subbase

Course

30 MPa 0.4 Subgrade

(CBR=3)

∞
Maximum 20 characters
Maximum 72 characters
Table of Layers is now empty – we now start adding layers from the top
 Layer No. 1 = Asphalt

2. 3.

1.
Layer No. 1 = Asphalt
Layer No. 1 = Asphalt
 Layer No. 2 = Base Course

3.
2.

1.
Layer No. 2 = Base Course
 Layer No. 3 = Sub-Base Course

3.
2.

1.
Layer No. 3 = Sub-Base Course
 Layer No. 4 = Subgrade

3.
2.

1.
Layer No. 4 = Subgrade
 Layer No. 4 = Subgrade

Set Thickness = 0 for infinite depth subgrade

Preview of
Material
Property Data
Material Type
 F k I 5.0
N = RF
H εK horizontal tensile strain
repetitions to failure at underside of layer
 Components of databases

Job

Coordinates for
Traffic Spectrum Layered System
Results

Load Elastic Performance

Groups Properties Criteria
 Relationships in Layers/Materials
Database

Performance Material 1
Relationship 1 (e.g. Asphalt)

Material 2 Layered
(e.g. Granular) System

Performance Material 3
Relationship 3 (e.g. Subgrade)
Material Type
Adding New Performance Data
Click to add Performance data
Enter Performance ID (<=20 chars.)
Enter Title (<=72 chars.)
Enter these values
Adding New Elastic Material Data
Click to add new material
Enter material ID (<=20 chars.)
Enter Title (<=72 chars.)
 This box should be ticked.

Click on the desired Performance Criterion

Enter Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio.
 Conclusions

„ Airport pavement research supports models

significantly different from highway pavement
design
 Conclusions - HIPAVE

„ does full spectral analysis of pavement damage

from multiple vehicle models and payload cases
„ provides more accurate design outcome than
other multi-layer elastic design applications
„ major improvement on chart-based design
methods
„ careful choice of design inputs will lead to more
economic heavy duty pavement designs
„ will benefit clients and provide sustainable design
solutions
 Downloads

„ URL = mincad.com.au/zdm
„ Includes:
„ Latest versions of HIPAVE, CIRCLY, APSDS
„ Heavy Duty Industrial Pavement Design Guide
„ Workshop Slides
„ Sample Client Pavement Design Document
References - 1
„ Austroads (2004). Pavement Design- A Guide to the Structural Design of Road
Pavements. Austroads Publication No. AP-G17/04.
„ 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.
„ 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.
„ Smallridge, M. and Jacob, A. (2001). The ASCE Port and Intermodal Yard Pavement
Design Guide. Ports 2001 Conference: America’s Ports - Gateway to the Global
Economy. April 29–May 2, 2001, Norfolk, Virginia, USA (Collins, T. J. – ed.).
„ Mincad Systems and Pioneer Road Services (2006). Heavy Duty Industrial Pavement
Design Guide, http://www.mincad.com.au/hdipdg/
„ Mincad Systems (2006). HIPAVE. http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE.htm
„ Pereira, A. T. (1977). Procedures for development of CBR design curves. Instruction
Report S-77-1, US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
References - 2
„ Wardle, L. J. and Oldfield, D. (2005). HIPAVE – A Mechanistic Design Tool for Flexible
Port Pavements. Proc. 2005 Coasts and Ports Australasian Conference, Adelaide,
South Australia 21-23 September 2005.
http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm
„ Wardle, L. J., Rickards, I. and Hudson, K. (2005). HIPAVE – A Mechanistic Design Tool
for Heavy-Duty Industrial Pavements. Proc. AAPA Pavements Industry Conf., Surfers
Paradise, Australia.
http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm
„ 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. http://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.
http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm
„ Wardle, L.J., Youdale, G. and Rodway, B. (2003). Current Issues For Mechanistic
Pavement Design. in 21st ARRB and 11th REAAA Conference, Cairns, Australia, 18 -
23 May, 2003, Session S32, ARRB Transport Research.
http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm
„ Wardle , L., Rickards, I. and Lancaster, J. (2006). HIPAVE - A Tool To Assist In The
Mechanistic Empirical Design Of Heavy Duty Industrial Flexible Pavements. 10th
International Conference on Asphalt Pavements (ISAP), Quebec, Canada, August. 12-
17. http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm
Pavement Design Workshop

The End