Comparison of Nonlinear Analysis Algorithms for Two Typical Asphalt Pavement Analysis Programs

Xin Jiang; Kang Yao; Hanyan Gu; Zhenkun Li; Yanjun Qiu

doi:10.7250/bjrbe.2020-15.502

Comparison of Nonlinear Analysis Algorithms for Two Typical Asphalt Pavement Analysis Programs

Authors

Xin Jiang School of Civil Engineering, Highway Engineering Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, MOE Key Laboratory of High-Speed Railway Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3044-5495
Kang Yao School of Civil Engineering, Highway Engineering Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, MOE Key Laboratory of High-Speed Railway Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4368-6607
Hanyan Gu School of Civil Engineering, Highway Engineering Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, MOE Key Laboratory of High-Speed Railway Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2881-6282
Zhenkun Li School of Civil Engineering, Highway Engineering Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, MOE Key Laboratory of High-Speed Railway Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7123-3993
Yanjun Qiu School of Civil Engineering, Highway Engineering Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, MOE Key Laboratory of High-Speed Railway Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2250-5363

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7250/bjrbe.2020-15.502

Keywords:

algorithms, elastic layered system, Finite Element Method (FEM), mechanical response, nonlinear analysis

Abstract

Two representative programs, MICH-PAVE and KENLAYER, are selected and compared to many key aspects of their analysis algorithms to achieve an in-depth understanding of the features of the Finite Element Method and elastic layered system theory in nonlinear material analysis of the structure of asphalt pavement. Furthermore, by conducting a case study, the impact of using different analysis methods on the calculation results is presented. Moreover, the feasibility of the equivalent resilient modulus obtained by the Finite Element Method is discussed. The results show that the difference among the nonlinear analysis algorithms used by the two software packages is mainly reflected in the determination of the initial resilient modulus, the stress correction, and the convergence condition. Besides, the Finite Element Method could consider the variation of the resilient modulus induced by the change in the stress condition in both the radial and the depth directions simultaneously. In contrast, the theory of the elastic layered system only considers the dependence of the resilient modulus on the stress in the depth direction. Additionally, the use of diverse nonlinear analysis methods has different levels of impact on mechanical responses. Finally, the equivalent resilient modulus obtained by nonlinear analysis can be used to calculate mechanical responses of pavement structure except the surface deflection in a linear analysis.

References

Bitumen Business Group (1998). BISAR 3.0 User Manual.

Boussinesq, J. (1885). Application des potentiels à l’étude de l’équilibre et du mouvement des solides élastiques: principalement au calcul des déformations et des pressions que produisent, dans ces solides, des efforts quelconques exercés sur une petite partie de leur surface ou de leur intérieur: mémoire suivi de notes étendues sur divers points de physique, mathematique et d’analyse (Vol. 4). Gauthier-Villars. (in French)

Burmister, D. M. (1945). The general theory of stresses and displacements in layered soil systems. II. Journal of Applied Physics, 16(3), 126-127. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1707558

Burmister, D. M., Palmer, L. A., Barber, E. S., & Middlebrooks, T. A. (1944). The theory of stress and displacements in layered systems and applications to the design of airport runways. In Highway Research Board Proceedings (Vol. 23).

Davids, W. G., & Clapp, J. D. (2009). EverStressFE1. 0 Software for 3D finite-element analysis of flexible pavement structures. The Washington State Dept of Transportation. Washington USA.

Duncan, J. M., Monismith, C. L., & Wilson, E. L. (1968). Finite element analysis of pavements. Highway Research Record, 228, 18-33.

Ghanizadeh, A. R., & Ziaie, A. (2015). NonPAS: a program for nonlinear analysis of flexible pavements. International Journal of Integrated Engineering, 7(1), 21-28.

Harichandran, R. S. & Baladi, G. Y. (2000). MICH-PAVE User’s Manual (Version 1.2 for DOS). Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University.

Harichandran, R. S., Yeh, M. S., & Baladi, G. Y. (1990). MICH-PAVE: A nonlinear finite element program for analysis of flexible pavements. Transportation Research Record, (1286), 123-131.

Hicks, R. G., & Monismith, C. L. (1971). Factors influencing the resilient response of granular materials. Highway Research Record, 345, 15-31.

Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, USA.

Jiang, X., Zeng, C., Gao, X., Liu, Z., & Qiu, Y. (2019). 3D FEM analysis of flexible base asphalt pavement structure under nonuniform tyre contact pressure. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 20(9), 999-1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2017.1380803

Kim, M., & Tutumluer, E. (2010). Validation of a three-dimensional finite element model using airfield pavement multiple wheel load responses. Road Materials & Pavement Design, 11(2), 387-408. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2010.9690281

Kruntcheva, M. R., Collop, A. C., & Thom, N. H. (2005). Effect of bond condition on flexible pavement performance. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 131(11), 880-888. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2005)131:11(880)

MINCAD Systems Pty. Ltd. (2009). CIRCLY 5.0 User Manual.

Park, D. W., Fernando, E., & Leidy, J. (2005a). Evaluation of predicted pavement response with measured tire contact stresses. Transportation Research Record, 1919(1), 160-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0361198105191900117

Park, D. W., Martin, A. E., & Masad, E. (2005b). Effects of nonuniform tire contact stresses on pavement response. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 131(11), 873-879. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2005)131:11(873)

Raad, L., & Figueroa, J. L. (1980). Load response of transportation support systems. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 106(1), 111–128.

Sun, Z., Zhuo, B., & Liao, Z. (2014). Nonlinear fatigue damage characteristics and stress evolution law of asphalt pavement. Journal of Central South University: Science and Technology, 45(2), 576-580.

Thompson, M. R. (1982). ILLI-PAVE User Manual. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Transportation Facilities Group.

Thompson, M. R., & Robnett, Q. L. (1976). Resilient properties of subgrade soils (No. FHWA-IL-UI-160 Final Rpt.).

Tutumluer, E. (1995). Predicting behavior of flexible pavements with granular bases (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology).

You, Q., & Ling, J. (2015). Nonlinear influence of material on mechanical response of airport asphalt pavement. Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 43(6), 866-871. https://doi.org/10.11908/j.issn.0253-374x.2015.06.009 (in Chinese)

Ziari, H., & Khabiri, M. M. (2007). Interface condition influence on prediction of flexible pavement life. Journal of Civil Engineering & Management, 13(1), 71-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13923730.2007.9636421

Comparison of Nonlinear Analysis Algorithms for Two Typical Asphalt Pavement Analysis Programs

Authors

DOI:

Keywords:

Abstract

References

Downloads

Published

Issue

Section

License

How to Cite