HiTEL Seminar [February 6th, 2013] Kharisma Putri Aurum [R120042]

ROAD DESIGN IMPROVEMENT BY CONSIDERING BONDING CONDITION BETWEEN PAVEMENT LAYERS

1.

Objectives

This study aims to achieve several objectives as follows: 1. To analyze the relationship between structure responses (stress, strain, and deflections) at pavement layers and the bonding conditions on the interfaces between layers. 2. To analyze the effect of horizontal force as the consequence of friction between wheels and pavement surface. 3. To analyze critical responses horizontal strain on the bottom of asphalt layer and vertical strain on the top of subgrade with the variations of pavement layer thickness, considering the bonding conditions. 4. To determine pavement life based on critical criteria for various bonding conditions. 5. To compare and define the most optimal option which can obtain maximum economic benefit. 5. 2. Methodology
INTRODUCTION

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets numbering Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Background Objectives Stress-strain concepts Interface bonding concepts Pavement life concepts Variations of interface bonding condition Variations of horizontal force Variations of layer thickness
Analyze the effect of partial bonding condition Analyze the effect of horizontal force Analyze the effect of layer thickness variation Analyze critical responses

LITERATURE REVIEW

PAVEMENT MODELLING

ANALYSIS

PAVEMENT LIFE CALCULATIONS

Calculate critical condition Calculate pavement life

DEFINE OPTIMAL SOLUTION & RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure 1 Research Framework

HiTEL Seminar [February 6th, 2013] Kharisma Putri Aurum [R120042] 3. Literature Review 3.1 Basic Concept of Flexible Pavement Structure Flexible pavement structure is pavement system composed by several layers of materials and using flexible material like bitumen (asphalt) as binder material. Typical layers of a conventional flexible pavement include surface course, base course, sub-base course, and subgrade. It is called flexible pavements as the total pavement structure deflects, or flexes under loading. The concept of load distribution in flexible pavement structure is the loads received from the above layers, spread, then passed on to the next layer below. So that, the lower layer in the pavement structure will carry the less load then the upper layer. The philosophy of flexible pavement structure is how to design a structure which can hold and distribute loads from vehicle wheels in such a way lower layers and subgrade layer still can bear the loads within certain capacity.

Figure 2 Load Distribution in Flexible Pavement

There are some methods can be used to analyze pavement system, one of the latest is mechanistic analytical method. Basic concept of this method is to calculate stress, strain, and deflection phenomenon on pavement structure as its responses to some number of loads. The purpose of this method is to predict deterioration occurred on the structure and when will the structure needs any action or maintenance, for example overlay. Analytical method of pavement design has some advantages, such as considering the variation of loading types, which will give more exact and accurate results. More accurate the result is, the failure will be predicted faster. 3.2 Failure Criterion

There are two types of pavement failure criteria that commonly used in most cases (Figure 3); i.e. 1) limiting the horizontal tension strain at the bottom of bituminous layer which can incur fatigue crack, and 2) limiting vertical compression strain at the upper side of subgrade which can incur permanent deformation or rutting. According to those two failure criteria, slippage failure is one of the kinds that can happen at pavement layer.

HiTEL Seminar [February 6th, 2013] Kharisma Putri Aurum [R120042]

Figure 3 Typical Flexible Pavement Structure

Brown (1972) stated cracking of the asphalt layer arises from repeated tensile strain, the maximum value of which occurs at the bottom of the layer. The crack, once initiated, propagates upwards causing gradual weakening of the structure. According to Croney (1992), tensile strain can occur due to different behavior of pavement layers on response loading condition. Following equation can be used to predict pavements fatigue life: Nf = f1 (t)-f2 (E1)-f3 Where: Nf = Maximum allowable repition load to restrain fatigue crack (ESAL) t = Horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of asphalt layer (in/in) E1 = Elasticity modulus of asphalt layer (ksi) f1, f2, f3 = Constant given by SHELL: 0.0685, 5.671, 2.363

Rutting is defined as the permanent deformation of a pavement due to the progressive accumulation of visco-plastic vertical compressive strains under traffic loading. On the pavement surface, it manifests as longitudinal depressions in the wheel tracks. Significant rutting can lead to major structural failures and hydroplaning potentials. Walubita LF et al. (2003) also stated, besides pavement structural damage, surface rutting poses a serious safety threat to motorists. Pooling of water in the ruts may result in hydroplaning, making vehicle steering, and braking difficult. The water can also result into loss of asphalt stiffness due to degradation and stripping. Following equation commonly used to predict permanent deformation: Nd = f4 (c)-f5 Where: Nd c f4, f5

= Maximum allowable repition load to restrain permanent deformation(ESAL) = Vertical compression strain at the top of subgrade (in/in) = Constant given by SHELL: 1.05 x10-7, 4.0 (95% reliability)

3.3

Bonding Condition in Flexible Pavement

At present, for design purposes it is typically assumed that full bonding exists between the pavement layers (Brown and Brunton, 1985). However, under real conditions, the state of

HiTEL Seminar [February 6th, 2013] Kharisma Putri Aurum [R120042] adhesion is unknown, ranging from full adhesion to zero adhesion, depending on material properties and construction quality. In support of this statement, Brown and Brunton (1984) concluded that more research is needed on the subject of interface bond. The bond between layers is very important to ensure that those layers work together as a composite structure to withstand traffic and environmental (e.g. temperature induced) loadings. To achieve that condition, a thin film of bituminous bond coat (or tack coat) is usually applied at the interfaces. However, full bonding is not always achieved and a number of pavement failures linked to poor bond condition have been reported (TRRL, 1976; Kennedy, 1978; SETRA/DTC, 1986; Lepert et al., 1992; Hachiya and Sato, 1997; Raab and Partl, 1999; Hakim, 2002; Sutanto, 2004; Charmot et al., 2005; Tashman et al., 2007; Bognacki et al., 2007). In Switzerland, Raab and Partl (1999) reported several cases of slippage cracking and horizontal permanent deformation related to poor bond condition at the interface beneath the surfacing on some locations of roads where the shearing forces induced by horizontal loadings were high (e.g. curve, intersection, upward and downward gradients) or where an asphalt surfacing was laid over a concrete layer (e.g. bridge deck). Sutanto (2004) reported that in August 2001, a severe horizontal permanent deformation and delamination of an HRA surfacing were found in some locations where the vehicles brake and turn (curve, intersection) on a newly overlaid road section in Sragen, Indonesia. In Japan, surfacing failures caused by bond problems have been frequently reported at some locations on airport runways where a high-speed aircraft usually brakes and turns sharply (Hachiya and Sato, 1997). In 2005, an area of a landing runway close to the highspeed taxiway at Newark International Airport, USA, experienced slippage failure at the interface between the first and second asphalt layers and a horizontal permanent deformation was observed on the surfacing (Bognacki et al., 2007). 3.4 Modeling of Bond Condition Using BISAR 3.0

An interface model to characterize bond condition at the interface between layers is surely needed. In elastic layered theory, Burmister (1945) provided solutions for two interface conditions: full friction (i.e. full bond) and frictionless (i.e. full slip), which are only considered two extreme interface conditions and very unlikely because interlayer friction may still exist (Brown and Brunton, 1984). Uzan et al. (1978) introduced a method for the solution of elastic layered systems in between those two extreme conditions. They adopted Goodmans constitutive law (Goodman et al. 1968) to explain the interface condition: = Ks (U) where is the shear stress at the interface (in MPa), U is the relative horizontal displacement at the interface (in mm), and Ks is the shear reaction modulus of the interface (in MPa/mm).

HiTEL Seminar [February 6th, 2013] Kharisma Putri Aurum [R120042] Using an elastic layered computer program BISAR which developed by SHELL, it is not possible to make a model for the interface with partial condition, the condition between two extreme condition. The designers of BISAR have developed the concept of shear spring compliance to account for the relative displacements (slip) between pavement layers. The shear spring compliance is the inverse of the shear reaction modulus at the interface between adjacent layers. The definition of the shear spring compliance, AK, is given by: [ ]

START

INPUT

Loads
Basic data: No. of Circular Loads (1-10) X Coordinate (m) Y Coordinate (m) Shear Direction (degree) Data by mode options: 1. Stress and Load Mode Vertical Stress (kPa) Vertical Load (kN) Horizontal Stress (kPa) 2. Load and Radius Mode Vertical Load (kN) Radius (m) Horizontal Load (kN) 3. Stress and Radius Mode Vertical Stress (kPa) Radius (m) Horizontal Stress (kPa)

Layering System
FULL FRICTION ASSUMPTION CONSIDER PARTIAL FRICTION

Positions
No. of Positions Entries (1-10) X Coordinate (m) Y Coordinate (m) Z Coordinate/depth (m)

No. of Layers (1-10) Thickness (m) Modulus of Elasticity (MPa) Poissons Ratio Spring Compliance (m) or (m3/N), on partial friction condition

STRESS, STRAIN, DEFLECTION CALCULATION

OUTPUT

Stresses (MPa) UX, UY, UZ direction

Strains (strain) XX, YY, ZZ direction

Displacements (m) Arah UX, UY, UZ direction

FINISH

Figure 4 Methodology of BISAR 3.0

HiTEL Seminar [February 6th, 2013] Kharisma Putri Aurum [R120042] 4. Pavement Modeling

At least there are four basic components that should be determined in every pavement structure analysis, as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Pavement structure configuration Isotrophical condition Load configuration Interface condition

Adapting commonly used road pavement structure, this study use four layers pavement structure with two asphalt layers, one base layer, and one subgrade layer. This flexible pavement structure modeled in isotrophic condition with elastic-linear behavior assumed occurs in all of the layers. Following figure shows the schematic pavement structure for this study.

Figure 5 Pavement Structure Configuration

Standard Dual Wheel configuration loads are used for this study. Coefficients of friction between wheel and pavement surface are assumed in the range between 0.5 0.8, horizontal force can be defined by multiply this coefficient with the vertical load value. Then horizontal forces used in this study are in the range between 10 16 kN. Bonding condition at the interface is represented by Standard Shear Spring Compliance (AK) value. Following table shows the AK value which are used for this study:
Table 1 Standard Shear Spring Compliance Values
Bonding Parameter Ks (MPa/m) AK (m /N)
3

450 2.22E-09

Medium 500 550 2.00E-09 1.82E-09

Strong 600 1.67E-09 700 1.43E-09 750 1.33E-09 800 1.25E-09 850 1.18E-09

Using configurations as mentioned above, following graphics are the results for pavement modeling with variations of bonding condition at the interface and application of horizontal forces.

HiTEL Seminar [February 6th, 2013] Kharisma Putri Aurum [R120042]

Figure 6 Strain Responses on Various Conditions

Figure 7 Deflection Responses on Various Conditions

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the effect of bonding condition at interface and also the effect of horizontal forces to pavement responses. The increasing of Ks value is indicating better condition of bonding at the interface. Graphics above show both horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of asphalt layer and vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade are decrease as Ks value increases. Different trend occurs for the effect of horizontal forces. It can be seen that horizontal tensile strain increases as the increasing of horizontal forces, in the other hand vertical compressive strain decrease instead. This condition can be happened because on the location where vertical strain was observed, which is at the top of subgrade layer, horizontal force already dissipates. It is important to know that horizontal shear stress dissipates relatively quickly from the maximum under the edge of a load at the surface with horizontal and vertical force applied to zero at a depth of approximately 100 mm (Horak,E. et al., 2009). Deflection responses show more simple condition, which both location (surface and the top of subgrade) have the same trend as their response to bonding condition and horizontal force.

HiTEL Seminar [February 6th, 2013] Kharisma Putri Aurum [R120042] 5. Next Further analysis about the effect of horizontal force and partial bonding condition at interface Analysis of the critical response location Sensitivity analysis for various condition (horizontal forces, bonding condition, layer thickness) Analysis of overloading condition

6.

References 1. Hakim, B. A., 2002. The Importance of Good Bond between Bituminous Layers. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements. 2. Kruntcheva, M. R., Collop, A. C., and Thom, N. H., 2006. Effect of Bond Condition on Flexible Pavement Performance. Journal of Transportation Engineering ASCE. 3. Shell Bitumen, 1978. Shell Pavement Design Manual. Shell International Petroleum Company Limited. London. 4. Roeun, C., Mony, M., 2007. Damage Effects of Road Pavements due to Overloading. Cambodia. 5. Lubis, et al., 2005. Multimodal Transport in Indonesia: Recent Profile and Strategy Development. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 5. 6. West, R., 2005. Evaluation of Bond Strength between Pavement Layers. National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University. Alabama. 7. Hachiya, Y. and Sato, K., 1998. Effect of Tack Coat on Bonding Characteristics at Interface between Asphalt Concrete Layers. Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Vol. 1.