Austroads Technical Report

AP-T228-13
AUSTROADS TECHNICAL REPORT

Feasibility Study of using Wheel-tracking
Tests and Finite Element Modelling for
Pavement Permanent Deformation Prediction
Feasibility Study of using Wheel-tracking Tests

and Finite Element Modelling for Pavement
Permanent Deformation Prediction
Feasibility Study of using Wheel-tracking Tests and Finite Element

Modelling for Pavement Permanent Deformation Prediction
Published March 2013
Austroads Ltd 2013

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
ISBN 978-1-921991-79-0
Austroads Project No. TT1715

Austroads Publication No. AP-T228-13
Project Manager
Andrew Papacostas, VicRoads
Prepared by
Didier Bodin, Michael Moffatt, Adrian Lim
ARRB Group
Published by Austroads Ltd

Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should
rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Feasibility Study of using Wheel-tracking Tests

and Finite Element Modelling for Pavement
Permanent Deformation Prediction
Sydney 2013
About Austroads
Austroads purpose is to:
promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
provide expert technical input to national policy development on road and road transport
issues
promote improved practice and capability by road agencies.
promote consistency in road and road agency operations.
Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Australian Local
Government Association, and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a Board consisting
of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven
member organisations:
Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
Department of Transport Northern Territory
Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport
Australian Local Government Association
New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in
the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road transport sector.
Feasibility Study of using Wheel-tracking Tests and Finite Element Modelling for Pavement Permanent Deformation Prediction
SUMMARY
In the current Austroads pavement design approach, the rutting performance of each unbound
granular material used is not directly considered. This report presents an assessment of the
feasibility of developing a new performance-based approach for unbound granular pavement
rutting prediction. The approach is based on new laboratory wheel-tracking tests developed by
Austroads for unbound granular material characterisation. Laboratory performance data obtained
under wheel-tracking conditions are used to calibrate the performance parameters to be
incorporated in a pavement performance model. Finite element method analyses are conducted
for both the wheel-tracking test and full-scale pavement conditions, and the permanent deformation
is calculated for both loading conditions. The feasibility study is based on a selection of candidate
permanent deformation relationships selected from a literature survey.
The first step in the research was to compile a list of candidate models available in the international
literature. Empirical models are more likely to be of practical use in a pavement design method,
whereas more theoretical models (cyclic plasticity) will be less likely to be incorporated into a
routine design approach. A short list comprising the best models for implementation was
developed.
For the implementation of the structural calculation of the permanent deformation a 3D finite
element model of the wheel-tracking specimen was developed. In the model, the response to the
wheel load is calculated using the nonlinear elastic model selected for unbound granular material
modelling by earlier Austroads work. The stresses calculated by the finite element model of the
wheel-tracker are then used to calculate the vertical deformation at the centre of the slab.
The parameters used in the candidate permanent deformation models are then calibrated against
the observed wheel-tracking deformation results. For the feasibility exercise, the Microsoft Excel
nonlinear solver was used to determine the model parameters for four different materials
previously tested in a previous Austroads project. After fitting of the model parameters, the
candidate relationships were matched with the laboratory results, with an average difference
between the fitted curve compared to the experimental curve below 1 mm.
In previous work, the same four materials had been tested using accelerated loading with the
Accelerated Loading Facility (ALF), and the deformation of these full-scale pavements was
recorded. The response to load of these four pavements to load was modelled using the same
finite element approach used for the wheel-tracker. The calculated stresses were then entered into
the candidate permanent deformation models. Comparisons were made between the calculated
pavement surface deformations and the actual surface deformations measured during the ALF
loading. One of the four candidate relationships selected for the feasibility study provided a better
match between predicted and observed deformations. For the three other materials the predicted
permanent deformation rates were found to be smaller than those observed during the ALF testing,
i.e. the models underestimated the pavement surface deformation.
The work demonstrated that the analysis approach was a feasible means of assessing candidate
permanent deformation models by use of both wheel-tracker and ALF testing results. At this stage
of the research, and without any additional calibration factors, the predicted deformations were
found to underestimate the deformations in the tested pavements. The project will continue and
provide refinement to the modelling approach. The development of a new wheel-tracking test for
crushed rock characterisation will also provide additional laboratory data allowing the
implementation of the method across a wider range of materials.
Austroads 2013
i
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Project Background and Objective ......................................................................................... 1

Current Austroads Permanent Deformation Model ................................................................. 1
New Approach Based on Finite Element Modelling ................................................................ 2
Scope of this Report .............................................................................................................. 2
PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH ......................... 3
LITERATURE REVIEW OF MATERIAL AND PAVEMENT MODELS FOR

PERMANENT DEFORMATION OF UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS ......................... 5
3.1
Background ........................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1
Pavement Deformation Mechanism.......................................................................... 5
3.1.2
Permanent Deformation Rate for UGM .................................................................... 6
3.1.3
Stress Paths in the Roadbed .................................................................................... 7
Empirical Models Derived from Laboratory Triaxial Tests....................................................... 8
3.2.1
Relationship Permanent Deformation versus Number of Loading Cycles ................. 8
3.2.2
Relationship Permanent Deformation versus Stress Conditions ............................. 10
3.2.3
Methods Based on Resilient Strain......................................................................... 12
3.2.4
Model Developed for the Constant Deformation Rate Stage .................................. 13
3.2.5
Coupling Effect of Loading Cycles and Stresses .................................................... 14
Pavement Performance Prediction Models .......................................................................... 15
3.3.1
Permanent Deformation Approach Based Design Criterion .................................... 16
3.3.2
Permanent Deformation Calculated from a Layer Approach ................................... 17
3.3.3
FEM Approach Based on Deformation Calculation in a Pavement Crosssection ................................................................................................................... 18
3.3.4
FEM Approach Based on Deformation Calculation under the Loading Wheel ........ 20
3.3.5
Main Pavement Models Characteristics.................................................................. 23
Performance-based Approach used in Pavement Design .................................................... 24
Candidate Material Performance Relationships ................................................................... 25
3.5.1
Empirical Relationship for Rutting versus Loading Cycles ...................................... 25
3.5.2
Empirical Relationship for Rutting versus Loading Conditions ................................ 26
3.5.3
Four Candidate Relationships used for the First Assessment................................. 27
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
AVAILABLE DATA ............................................................................................................. 28
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Wheel-tracking Tests ........................................................................................................... 28

Static Triaxial Shear Strength .............................................................................................. 29
Full-scale Pavement Performance Data ............................................................................... 30
4.3.1
Pavement Configuration ......................................................................................... 30
4.3.2
Deformation Data ................................................................................................... 30
Data Summary ..................................................................................................................... 33
WHEEL-TRACKER FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ................................................................. 34
5.1
Wheel-tracker Model ............................................................................................................ 34

5.1.1
Validation of Material Model Implementation .......................................................... 34
5.1.2
Definition of a Loading Cycle .................................................................................. 35
5.1.3
Model used for the Wheel-tracker........................................................................... 36
Permanent Deformation Calculation .................................................................................... 37
5.2.1
General Integration Assumptions ........................................................................... 37
5.2
Austroads 2013
ii
CALIBRATION OF THE PERMANENT DEFORMATION MODELS ................................... 38
6.1
6.2
6.3
Material Stress Conditions ................................................................................................... 38

Parameters to be Adjusted................................................................................................... 39
Model Parameters Calibration .............................................................................................. 40
6.3.1
Power Law Relationship ......................................................................................... 40
6.3.2
Hyperbolic Relationship.......................................................................................... 43
Analysis of the Model Calibration ......................................................................................... 45
6.4.1
Shear Resistance Parameters................................................................................ 45
6.4.2
Accuracy of Model Fitting ....................................................................................... 45
6.4.3
Forms of Calibrated Models ................................................................................... 46
6.4
PAVEMENT DEFORMATION PREDICTION ....................................................................... 47
7.1
Pavement Structures and Input Parameters ........................................................................ 47

7.1.1
Unbound Granular Material Parameters ................................................................. 47
7.1.2
Cement Treated Subbase ...................................................................................... 48
7.1.3
Sand and Crushed Rock and Clay ......................................................................... 48
7.1.4
Summary of Material Parameters used .................................................................. 48
Wheel Load and Pavement Model ....................................................................................... 49
7.2.1
Modelling the Wheel Load ...................................................................................... 49
7.2.2
Pavement Finite Element Mesh.............................................................................. 49
7.2.3
Pavement Permanent Deformation Calculation ...................................................... 49
Predicted Pavement Permanent Deformation ...................................................................... 50
7.3.1
Predicted Pavement Deformation using Sweere-Lekarp Relationship .................... 50
7.3.2
Predicted Pavement Deformation using Other Relationships ................................. 51
7.2
7.3
CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS ................................................................................... 52
8.1
8.2
8.3
Literature Survey and Approach........................................................................................... 52

The Finite Element Models and Assessment of the Feasibility ............................................. 52
Suggestions for Further Work .............................................................................................. 53
REFERENCES
.......................................................................................................................... 54
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
MATERIAL MODEL USED FOR UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS ......... 58

PAVEMENT MATERIALS DESCRIPTION ........................................................ 60
PAVEMENT DEFORMATION ........................................................................... 61
PREDICTED PAVEMENT DEFORMATION ...................................................... 62
Austroads 2013
iii
TABLES
Table 3.1:
Table 3.2:
Table 3.3:
Table 3.4:
Table 4.1:
Table 4.2:
Table 5.1:
Table 6.1:
Table 6.2:
Table 6.3:
Table 6.4:
Table 6.5:
Table 7.1:
Table 7.2:
Rutting mechanisms in granular pavement............................................................... 5

Relationships used to model permanent strain versus number of load
applications .............................................................................................................. 9
Relationships, incorporating stress conditions, used to model permanent
strain versus number of load applications............................................................... 11
Summary table of the deformation relationships tested during the
feasibility assessment ............................................................................................ 27
Specimens used in the shear strength triaxial testing program ............................... 30
ALF loading conditions ........................................................................................... 31
Presumptive parameters for the nonlinear characterisation of a high
quality crushed rock base ....................................................................................... 34
Range of permanent deformation model parameter values from the
literature ................................................................................................................. 39
Model parameters fitted on wheel-tracker tests data for the SweereLekarp relationships ............................................................................................... 40
Model parameters fitted on WT tests data for the Sweere-Gidel
relationships ........................................................................................................... 42
Model parameters fitted on wheel-tracker tests data for the HornychLekarp relationships ............................................................................................... 43
Model parameters fitted on wheel-tracker tests data for the HornychGidel relationships.................................................................................................. 44
Linear input parameters ......................................................................................... 48
Nonlinear input parameters .................................................................................... 48
FIGURES
Figure 2.1:
Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.2:
Figure 3.3:
Figure 3.4:
Figure 3.5:
Figure 3.6:
Figure 3.7:
Figure 3.8:
Figure 3.9:
Figure 3.10:
Figure 3.11:
Figure 4.1:
Figure 4.2:
Figure 4.3:
Figure 4.4:
Figure 4.5:
Figure 4.6:
Flowchart of the proposed approach ........................................................................ 4

Schematic permanent deformation curves for increasing stress states .................... 6
Load conditions under a wheel pass in a pavement ................................................. 7
Model fitted on a multi-stage RLT test axial permanent strain ................................ 13
Permanent deformation data compared with model predictions based on
uncoupled stress-loading cycle functions ............................................................... 14
Example of permanent deformation SRN data ..................................................... 17
3D mesh (a) and associated 2D mesh, (b) for rut depth calculation........................ 19
Comparison of predicted and field rut depth relationships (a) FEM 2D
approach, (b) simplified 1D method ........................................................................ 20
Example of predicted pavement deformation derived from Arnolds
approach ................................................................................................................ 21
Resilient strain versus plastic strain rate relationships ............................................ 21
Example of permanent deformation versus load cycles from
Werkmeister approach ........................................................................................... 22
Predicted permanent deformation under 40 kN dual-wheel load
compared to ALF pavement deformation................................................................ 23
Extra-large wheel-tracker machine ......................................................................... 28
Wheel print area measurement .............................................................................. 29
Wheel-tracking results obtained on the four materials ............................................ 29
Pavement configuration.......................................................................................... 30
Permanent deformation of crushed rhyolite under accelerated loading .................. 31
Permanent deformation of crushed hornfels under accelerated loading ................. 32
Austroads 2013
iv
Figure 4.7:
Figure 4.8:
Figure 5.1:
Figure 5.2:
Figure 5.3:
Figure 5.4:
Figure 5.5:
Figure 6.1:
Figure 6.2:
Figure 6.3:
Figure 6.4:
Figure 6.5:
Figure 6.6:
Figure 6.7:
Figure 7.1:
Figure 7.2:
Figure 7.3:
Permanent deformation of crushed limestone under accelerated loading ............... 32

Permanent deformation of crushed tuff under accelerated loading ......................... 33
Pavement models used for FEM implementation validation.................................... 34
Comparison responses from 2D and 3D models .................................................... 35
Deformed mesh for three typical locations of the wheel load (half of the
slab is modelled) .................................................................................................... 35
p and q stresses at the centre of the slab versus the location of the
wheel ..................................................................................................................... 36
Wheel-tracker finite element model: mesh and boundary conditions ...................... 36
Calculated pq stress path under the wheel in the wheel-tracker
compared to the material shear envelope............................................................... 38
Model fitting results for the Sweere-Lekarp relationships (n = 1) ............................ 41
Model fitting results for the Sweere-Gidel relationships (n = 0.3) ............................ 42
Model fitting results for the Hornych-Lekarp relationships (n = 1) ........................... 43
Model fitting results for the Hornych-Gidel relationships (n = 0.3) ........................... 44
Comparison of calculated wheel-tracking permanent deformations for
various materials using the Sweere-Lekarp model ................................................. 46
Comparison of calculated wheel-tracking permanent deformations for
various materials using the Hornych-Lekarp model ................................................ 46
Pavement configuration.......................................................................................... 47
Finite element mesh used to model the experiment pavements ............................. 49
Model prediction results for the Sweere-Lekarp relationship................................... 50
Austroads 2013
v
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Project Background and Objective
Austroads is undertaking research into alternative methods and models to improve pavement
design processes so that they align with performance-based approaches and become less
empirically based. In that context Austroads developed a new nonlinear pavement response
model to improve the calculation of unbound granular pavements; however, the response to load
model does not provide information about the accumulated responses of pavements subjected to
repeated loads. For unbound granular pavements in particular, permanent deformation is the
major distress mechanism which needs to be characterised as accurately as possible in order to
help choose the most appropriate material and promote the best use of local and/or recycled ones.
Austroads started a new research project TT1715: Calibration of Enhanced Pavement Design
Models to improve the pavement rut predictions approaches. Additionally, improved material
characterisation methods for unbound granular have also been developed based on the
wheel-tracking tests in the TT1611 Improved Rut Resistance Characterisation of Granular Bases
project.
The objective of this report is to assess the feasibility of using an advanced analysis of
wheel-tracking test data, coupled with a pavement design approach to predict the permanent
deformation performance of unbound granular pavements. The first step in achieving this was to
evaluate the permanent deformation models available from the literature. The second was to build
a framework allowing both model calibration and pavement performance prediction. This was
completed using a 3D model of the wheel-tracker which was developed to enable the analysis of
the wheel-tracking test data in the model calibration stage. The report also presents the model
calibration using previous laboratory data. Finally, the model was used to predict pavement
permanent deformation.
1.2
Current Austroads Permanent Deformation Model
The current Austroads pavement design guide (Austroads 2012a) is based on a mechanistic
design method, which can be used to determine the performance of a pavement structure. This
method relies on an analytical approach to determine the response of the pavement structure to a
single axle load. The critical response used as the design parameter is either horizontal tensile
strains developed at the bottom of any bound layers, or the vertical compressive strain at the top of
the subgrade. For each type of material, the performance relationship relates the critical response
to the allowable number of standard axles.
For unbound granular pavements, the performance relationship used for the subgrade is given in
Equation 1:
=
where
9300 7
The vertical strain (in units of microstrain e.g. m/m) at the top of the
subgrade
The allowable number of repetitions of a Standard Axle at this strain before

an unacceptable level of permanent deformation develops
Austroads 2013
1
The mechanistic-based design process should be able to cater for new materials and pavement
configurations since the analytical approach allows the calculation of the critical response required
by the appropriate performance relationship. The difficulty lies in the development of a
performance relationship, since this is dependent upon material performance. The current
relationship was derived from an empirical design chart, calibrated after many years of
observations in a range of pavements. However, it does not comprise any performance
parameters for the material used in the pavement. Design moduli are defined for different types of
materials; however there is no consideration of the rutting resistance. Moreover, this approach
does not disassociate the contribution of a granular layer from the deformation of the subgrade.
The development of a performance-based approach should cater for the performance of each
material involved in the pavement system and their associated performance parameters in order to
improve the performance relationships used for the design of unbound granular pavements.
1.3
New Approach Based on Finite Element Modelling
The advantage of finite element modelling (FEM) for pavement design is its flexibility to incorporate
more realistic boundary conditions and material constitutive relationships. The main feature of
FEM is that the pavement is discretised into many small elements. Elements are connected
together, but the specific stress conditions are computed for each of the elements. FEM lends
itself well to the modelling of unbound granular materials as the modulus (stiffness) of these
materials is dependent upon the stress conditions of the material. Within a pavement structure the
stress conditions will vary, and so in turn the modulus of the granular material would vary. A
nonlinear pavement model has been developed based on finite element to accommodate with
granular specific constitutive relationship (Austroads 2012b). But FE models can also be used to
model laboratory testing conditions. They are particularly useful when analysing laboratory tests
where the stresses are not uniform in the specimen due to the boundary conditions.
The disadvantage, however, lies in the computation time, which can be significant compared to
some of the standard pavement tools used in routine pavement design. The computation time
required increases markedly with the number of elements used in the FEM model, and the number
of iterations required for convergence when dealing with nonlinear calculations also increases with
more elements. The processing power of modern computers can help mitigate this issue,
decreasing computation times.
1.4
Scope of this Report
This report presents the framework developed for permanent deformation predictions of unbound
granular pavements. This method used is based on material performance evaluated from
laboratory wheel-tracking tests.
After the principle behind the approach is outlined in Section 2, this report details each of the
stages of work undertaken to assess the feasibility of the approach:
a literature review was undertaken to search for available models for permanent deformation
of unbound granular materials, and candidate models were selected to be used to test the
feasibility of the performance-based approach (Section 3)
data available for implementation in the feasibility study was collated (Section 4)
modelling of the permanent deformation resistance was observed in the laboratory under
wheel-tracking testing conditions (Section 5)
material model parameter calibration was performed (Section 6)
pavement deformation prediction was calculated (Section 7).
The laboratory and pavement performance data used during the feasibility evaluation in this project
was obtained from a previous Austroads research project (Austroads 2010).
Austroads 2013
2
PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE-BASED

APPROACH
In this report a new and original performance-based approach for permanent deformation of
unbound granular materials (UGM) is proposed. It is created on performance tests of UGMs
performed under wheel-tracking conditions. The proposed method is built on three following
components:
Wheel-tracking tests data: the deformation data obtained from wheel-tracking tests on
unbound granular materials will be used to assess material performances in the laboratory
and the average deformation versus the number of loading cycles will be used to calibrate
the permanent deformation model.
Material model and fitting procedure: for a particular material model, the permanent
deformation will be calculated as a function of the material parameters; the data-fitting
process will then be applied to adjust the material model parameters so that they match the
deformation curve obtained from the laboratory tests.
Pavement prediction model: the pavement prediction model will be based on calculations
of deformation and used to calculate the response under pavement loading conditions. The
permanent deformation in the pavement is then calculated using the parameters determined
from the other components and when available, pavement performance data will be used to
assess the quality of the prediction.
This approach is illustrated in the flowchart in Figure 2.1. The method devised was implemented
and tested on data from a previous Austroads research project (Austroads 2010). Data available
from that project is presented Section 4. Section 3 presents the result of the literature survey
which focused on permanent deformation models.
Austroads 2013
3
Figure 2.1: Flowchart of the proposed approach
Austroads 2013
4
LITERATURE REVIEW OF MATERIAL AND PAVEMENT

MODELS FOR PERMANENT DEFORMATION OF
UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS
3.1
Background
Rutting or permanent deformation is a major distress mechanism for unbound granular pavements
with thin bituminous surfacing and as such, the characterisation of the rut resistance of granular
materials is an important challenge in order to predict the long-term performance of these
pavement types.
3.1.1
Pavement Deformation Mechanism
In service, pavements can exhibit different permanent deformation modes depending on the type
of distresses encountered and the type of material involved. Dawson and Kolisoja (2006) provided
a classification of three different mechanisms of rutting in granular pavements, which are described
in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Rutting mechanisms in granular pavement
Mode of rutting
Brief description
Mode 0
Rutting caused by compaction of non-saturated material. However,

generally the compaction during construction is assumed sufficient to
avoid further deformation under traffic. This mode of rutting is
self-stabilising.
Mode 1
Rutting that happens in weak granular materials. This rutting

mechanism involves material heaving on the side of the wheel-paths.
This mechanism can be named shear-failure of the base course.
Mode 2
When aggregate quality is good and uniform, then the pavement as a

whole may rut due to subgrade deformation resulting in the pavement
surface deformation while no deformation occurs in granular layer.
Schematic illustration
Source: Dawson and Kolisoja (2006).
From the schematic presentation of the rutting mechanism, it can be seen that the permanent
deformation or rutting can affect different components of the pavement. Furthermore, in-service
pavements can also exhibit more complex deformation patterns as a result of a combination of
rutting mechanisms i.e. mode 0 or mode 1 with mode 2. The deformation mechanism shown in
mode 0 can develop either in the base or subbase layer or both. Furthermore, pavement testing
performed by Larsen and Ullidtz (1997) and Theyse (1997) has shown that the contribution of the
granular layer to the total deformation of the pavement could be as high as 50%. Another
pavement testing study, detailed in Austroads (2010), has also highlighted that the contribution of
the granular base in the deformation of the pavement is significant. In that particular case, the
cement-treated subbase was used under a granular base in order to demonstrate and isolate the
contribution of the granular material deformation over a rigid support.
Austroads 2013
5
The research presented in this report is focused on UGM deformation used in road bases and
does not include providing a modelling approach for subgrade deformation. In a granular base,
deformation can develop as either mode 0 or mode 1 (Table 3.1), depending on the characteristics
of the crushed rock, moisture and loading conditions of the pavement.
Pavement rutting or permanent deformation, subject to the effect of continuous traffic flows, might
appear only after years of service. The in-service pavement response is complicated by the
involvement of many factors, i.e. material performance, traffic and climatic conditions (rain), and
performance of the drainage system. That being said, the whole distress mechanism is complex,
although laboratory tests have been defined to characterise and isolate the material performance
contributions.
The approach followed in this report is established for material characterisation at a given
compaction and moisture condition, as the density and moisture state of a UGM are the main
physical parameters to take into account when considering both resilient and permanent strain
characterisation (Lekarp et al. 2000a and 2000b).
3.1.2
Permanent Deformation Rate for UGM
Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) tests, originally developed in the field of soil mechanics, are widely
used to characterise the resistance to the permanent deformation of UGMs. These tests use a
cyclic deviatoric load which is applied to the pavement specimen and the resulting permanent
deformation is monitored. The confining pressure can be either constant or cyclic as well
depending on the complexity of the test apparatus and testing method being followed.
For different loading types and magnitudes, different permanent deformation regimes are observed
(Arnold et al. 2002), as indicated in Figure 3.1. This figure shows that the different permanent
deformation rates can be described as follows:
Range A: for low stress magnitudes, permanent deformation plateaus in the laboratory at
approximately 10 000 to 50 000 cycles and, based upon the shakedown theory
(Werkmeister et al. 2001), the material reaches adaptation or accommodation which is a
response commonly observed in UGM pavements after experiencing traffic loading.
Range B: under moderately higher deviatoric stresses, where the rate of permanent
deformation does not plateau, but remains constant, failure may not -occur for a long period
of time (Range B).
Range C: for higher stress conditions (where the stress state is closer to the failure envelope
of the material) or for the poorer quality materials, the permanent deformation generally
transitions to the third stage wherein the increase in permanent deformation is rapid, leading
to failure (Range C).
Source: Arnold et al. (2002).
Figure 3.1: Schematic permanent deformation curves for increasing stress states
Austroads 2013
6
3.1.3
Stress Paths in the Roadbed
The stress path applied in RLT tests is designed to mimic the load path in an in-service roadbed as
shown in Figure 3.2.
Source: Lekarp et al. (2000a).
Figure 3.2: Load conditions under a wheel pass in a pavement
Triaxial conditions at different confining and deviatoric stress levels are used to cover a range of
loading applied to a material in a roadbed. The stress magnitudes are changed during the tests,
but the principal stress orientation does not vary within a loading cycle. This differs from reality
wherein a pavement under a rolling wheel load (Figure 3.2) will induce a change in the magnitude
of the principal stresses as well as causing the principal stress tensors to rotate at a given location
in the pavement. These conditions however, are difficult to replicate in the laboratory environment.
The rotation of the principal stresses on the permanent deformation of UGMs can be examined by
comparing the results of a repeated triaxial test and the torsion results obtained on hollow
cylinders. These tests must be undertaken on the same material, under the same initial conditions
and in the same range of loading magnitudes. Thom and Dawson (1993) undertook tests on
hollow cylindrical specimens to study crushed rock behaviour (maximum aggregate size of 4 mm).
They concluded that the effect of stress rotations significantly affected the increase in permanent
deformation. Other torsion tests on hollow cylinders were performed by Chan (1990) to study the
permanent strain development in a crushed limestone (maximum aggregate size of 4 mm). A
comparison of tests performed in the same triaxial conditions, with and without additional torsion
were also analysed. It was noted that the tests which included the additional torsional loading had
higher permanent deformations. This latest study also focused on an experimental pavement
using two modes of loading for the same material. The permanent deformation measured was
three times higher under the moving wheel, compared to the static loading which can be attributed
to the stress rotation.
The same type of experiments were undertaken by Hornych et al. (2000) by applying two types of
loading conditions to a test pavement. They concluded that for the same loading magnitude, the
permanent deformation was up to three times higher under a moving wheel load compared to a
cyclic bearing plate test.
In the laboratory, Kim and Tutumluer (2005) studied the effect of stress path slope (pq diagram)
on permanent deformation. They compared the permanent deformation prediction of different
empirical relationships. The models which included the stress path slope parameters were found
to give a better fit for the laboratory-based data in the range of the stress paths studied.
Austroads 2013
7
All the data available confirms that changes in stress orientations lead to a greater permanent
deformation in granular materials. The importance of the stress rotation parameter on permanent
deformation suggests that there are potential benefits of rolling-wheel tests to characterise material
performance.
3.2
Empirical Models Derived from Laboratory Triaxial Tests
Historically, permanent deformation models for unbound granular pavement materials have been
based on empirical relationships of the deformation from laboratory triaxial tests results. The
derived relationships generally have two main components: a stress component and the number of
loading cycles. Some methods have also been proposed where the permanent deformations
depend on the resilient strain instead of resilient stress.
3.2.1
Relationship Permanent Deformation versus Number of Loading Cycles
The permanent deformation obtained from repeated triaxial tests are generally used to generate
permanent deformation. This is achieved by developing a mathematical relationship, based upon
a regression curve, which is used to fit to the data, as shown in Figure 3.1. Different relationships
can be found throughout the literature reviewed. These mathematical expressions/curves are
based on the following general ideas:
a rapid increase of the permanent strain at the beginning of the process
the development of a semi-linear part as a second stage which may be a plateau or with a
constant rate. (i.e. ranges A or B in Figure 3.1)
models that are designed to integrate the permanent deformation development following
path C incorporate an additional term to reflect an increase in the rate of deformation.
Table 3.2 lists the major model forms identified in the literature. The different relationships were
developed by their authors in order to provide a better fit against laboratory data obtained using
triaxial laboratory tests. As they are empirical relationships, the parameters developed are
generally only defined for one material tested at a given density and moisture content which may
not apply to other materials tested.
Austroads 2013
8
Table 3.2: Relationships used to model permanent strain versus number of load applications
Source
Relationship
Barksdale (1972)
Khedr (1985)
= + ()
Paute et al. (1988)
1 = 1
100
1 = 1
Vuong (1994)
Wolff and Visser (1994)

Huurman (1997)
1000 1
1000
() = +
0 , and
1 = ( + )(1 )
1 =
Theyse (2007)
Perez and Gallego (2010)
1 =
Paute et al. (1996)

Hornych et al. (1993)
1 The permanent deformation after the

first 100 cycles. , parameters function
of the stress level
() = + (1 )
1 +
1 () = 0
Sweere (1990)
1 =
Tseng and Lytton (1989)
Parameters
1 = 1 1 + ( + 2 )(1 2 )
1 The
permanent deformation after the

first 100 cycles. ,
1 resilient axial strain
, and
, and
Description
Assume a linear relationship between
Type of range
p
1
Power law and

(negative exponent decreasing rate).
and log(N).
Hyperbolic type of relationship.
B
B
A
Power law 1 and (negative exponent decreasing

rate).
Hyperbolic type of relationship.
Power law 1 and .

Power law 1 and .
Exponential first stage followed constant rate growth.
A and B
, , and parameters function of the

stress level
Combination of a power law and an exponential function.
A, B and C
, , and parameters
Constant long-term rate (close to linear relationship) with

additional factor to describe the growth at the beginning of
the tests.
A and B
1 , 1 , 2 , 2 and are parameters
Combination of three functions allowing description of the

three phases process.
A, B and C
Austroads 2013
9
The investigation of the permanent deformation models will be focused mainly on the relationships
that align well with deformation in Ranges A and B (Figure 3.1) only. Materials considered
desirable for road construction could be reasonably expected to follow one of these deformation
shapes. In the future it may be useful to incorporate Range C to enhance the model which will be
developed. This would allow the model to be used on materials with marginal properties or which
have been loaded in a high-stress environment. Additionally, this may also be necessary in order
to deal with situations involving specimens with high moisture contents.
Generally, the laboratory experiments are performed over a finite range of cycles and do not cover
the large number of load applications of an in-service pavement (millions of cycles). Pavement
predictions should be computed for large numbers of loading cycles (up to several millions of axle
loads) to replicate in-service pavement conditions. To do this, the laboratory test data must be
extrapolated. This highlights the importance of the using models whose functional form allows
realistic deformation for a high number of cycles.
The relationships developed for permanent deformation with respect to the number of load
applications do not necessarily incorporate the effect of the stress condition. The effect of stress is
often treated separately in the literature, as presented in the next section.
3.2.2
Relationship Permanent Deformation versus Stress Conditions
In triaxial tests, the loading stresses are controlled while the stress parameters are set in order to
reflect the effect of loading conditions on the development of permanent deformation. The most
significant relationships are summarised by Lekarp et al. (2000b) and are listed in Table 3.3.
In some cases, the relationships are simple power law expressions between the permanent
deformation and the stress ratio of the deviatoric stress to either the mean stress (i.e. /) or the
confining stress (/3 ). The remaining relationships were developed to determine the deformation
after a given number of cycles and do not necessarily include a term allowing the calculation of
at a particular number of loading cycles.
The length (or ) of the stress path in the diagram was introduced as a parameter in a
few of the relationships. In addition to the slope of the stress path given by / it was found to be
an appropriate parameter of the load (i.e. stress) magnitude.
Austroads 2013
10
Table 3.3: Relationships, incorporating stress conditions, used to model permanent strain versus number of load applications
Author(s)
Relationship
Lashine, Brown and

Pell (1971)
Barksdale (1972)
1 =
Shenton (1974)
Papin (1979)
Paute et al. (1996)

Nishi et al. (1994)
Lekarp and Dawson

(1998)
Parameters
/ 3
(1sin )
deviatoric stress, 3 confining pressure
Shear stress envelope parameter: and ( = + sin )

ratio of the applied stress q to deviatoric at failure
Model parameter:
deviatoric stress (maximum during the loading cycle)
Model parameters: K and a
2.8
permanent shear strain
= ()
1 = ()
,
Gidel et al. (2001)
() 10
, mean and deviatoric stresses respectively

= 2 + 2 the length of the load path
() =
() shape function of the number of cycles
Model parameter:
deviatoric stress, 3 confining pressure
2( cos +3 sin )
1 =
axial permanent derived from RLT tests
Model parameter:
axial permanent strain ultimate
, mean and deviatoric stresses respectively

Model parameters: , and
permanent deformation reached after loading cycles
reference pressure (atmospheric pressure)
Model parameter:
axial permanent strain
Maximum deviatoric and mean stresses: and
Shear stress envelope parameter: and ( = + )
Model parameter: 10 and
Austroads 2013
11
Description
The model considers proportional to:
the ratio of deviatoric stress to confining stress.
Hyperbolic plastic strain relationship fitted on cyclic triaxial test results.

the ratio of deviatoric stress to confining stress at a power .
the load path length (in the plot)
the ratio of deviatoric stress to mean stress at a power 2.8.
The models integrate a factor which grows toward infinite value when the
stress states tends towards the static shear envelope of the material.
the ratio of deviatoric stress to mean stress with a different exponent
applied to each of them.
the ratio of deviatoric stress to mean stress at the power b.
the load path length at a power n
the distance of the stress point ( , ) from the shear
envelope normalised by the mean stress .
Some relationships in Table 3.3 incorporate shear envelope parameters in order to generate
greater deformations at stress states close to that limit (Paute et al. 1996, Gidel et al. 2001). The
shear envelope parameters are determined under static stress conditions and some research has
shown that these parameters provide a means of predicting for stress states close to the shear
envelope in diagrams. However, it is still uncertain whether the static shear envelope is valid
under cyclic conditions and more importantly under cyclic rolling wheel conditions (Lekarp et al. 2000b).
The expressions described in Table 3.3 are all mathematical expressions which incorporate
different terms in order to replicate the data from various laboratory tests. The relevance of each
relationship depends on the range or type of material studied in the laboratory. There is no
evidence to suggest that any one of these relationships provides a good approach for granular
material permanent deformation over a wide range of material and testing conditions.
The selected models for the feasibility study using two of the most used/validated relationships, is
presented in Section 3.5.
3.2.3
Methods Based on Resilient Strain
During a RLT test, the axial resilient strain does not vary significantly when permanent strain
develops. This shows that the resilient modulus does not change much when the permanent strain
increases. This is generally true after a few cycles such as at the beginning of a test (in the first
hundred loading cycles) and before failure occurs. When a test involves the failure of a specimen
the resilient strain increases while the resilient modulus drops. During most of the cyclic loading
process, the resilient strain is relatively stable and as a result, some permanent deformation
prediction approaches are therefore based on the resilient strain parameters.
Vuong (2006) developed an approach based on the resilient strain by using a permanent strain
relationship to predict vertical permanent strain from vertical elastic strain. A framework was
developed to treat different load types (named ) independently. The permanent strain is
calculated according to Equation 2.

() =

where
Axial permanent strain
Number of load application
Axial resilient strain
and
Model parameters dependent on the stress conditions (mean and octahedral

stress components)
Load type of constant magnitude and deviatoric/confining stress ratio
Austroads 2013
12
This model uses the resilient strain parameters to calculate the permanent strain. However, the
parameters and are calculated from the stress conditions imposed during a test. The
relationship generated from the results was fitted on an RLT test performed on different crushed
rock and subgrade as illustrated in Figure 3.3.
Source: Vuong (2006).
Figure 3.3: Model fitted on a multi-stage RLT test axial permanent strain
Section 3.3.4 describes the implementation of this model and linking it with an FEM nonlinear
pavement response model to predict the deformation of a granular pavement under accelerated
loading facility (ALF) loading.
3.2.4
Model Developed for the Constant Deformation Rate Stage
During the second phase of the permanent strain growth (Figure 3.1), the permanent strain rate
can be seen to be approximately constant. Models have been developed to calculate the
deformation rate as a function of the loading conditions. A permanent deformation model
developed by Werkmeister was applied by Arnold and Werkmeister (2010) using the permanent
strain rate calculation shown in Equation 3.
=
where
Permanent strain rate
Resilient elastic strain
and
Material parameter fitted on RLT test results
Arnold (2004) used multi-stage RLT tests to develop a different approach (Equation 4) to calculate
the constant permanent strain rate as above as a function of the resilient stresses.
Austroads 2013
13
= + ( 1)
where
, and
Permanent strain rate
Mean and deviatoric stresses
Material parameter fitted on RLT test results
Section 3.3.4 describes fitting this model to laboratory data. Due to laboratory time constraints,
only a limited number of load applications were conducted, and so the model was fitted to the
measured data and extrapolations of that data. The extrapolations were made using a constant
rate, which may not be appropriate for all cases.
These models are developed to predict long-term deformation rates and do not consider the
development of the usually high, permanent deformations that occur in the early cycles of
laboratory or field loading. In both approaches a separate estimation of the post-construction
deformation has been implemented and needs to be added to the long-term performance part.
The transition between the two dissociated mechanisms needs to be well-defined. These models
do not provide a single relationship for the entire deformation process which complicates the
numerical implementations in both laboratory and field contexts.
3.2.5
Coupling Effect of Loading Cycles and Stresses
A few relationships were found in the reviewed literature that strongly coupled the separate effects
of stress levels and repetitions of loading cycles. Coupling these parameters was generally
achieved by multiplying the function of the loading cycles (Section 3.2.1) with the effects of the
stresses (Section 3.2.2). An analysis of multi-stage RLT tests conducted by Gidel et al. (2001)
found that the shape of the permanent deformation relative to the number of loading cycles was
relatively independent of the stress levels. Figure 3.4 shows the ability of such relationships to
reasonably predict the permanent deformation recorded during laboratory RLT tests for two
materials in a wide range of loading conditions.
Source: Gidel et al. (2001).
Figure 3.4: Permanent deformation data compared with model predictions based on uncoupled stress-loading cycle
functions
Austroads 2013
14
The magnitude or scale of the permanent deformation predictions was influenced by the stress
levels applied and the deviatoric/confining stress ratio. But independently of the stress state the
same function of the loading cycle could be used to fit the permanent deformation data. As a
consequence, it was proposed that the mathematical functions describing the permanent
deformation should be split into two parts, such as in Equation 5.
() = ()( )
where
()
()
( ) =
Permanent deformation as a function of

Number of loading cycle
Mathematical function of the single variable
Maximum stresses reached during a loading cycle
Generic function of the stress tensor component and the loading magnitude
within a loading cycle
This type of relationship is confirmed by repeated triaxial tests performed at different loading
conditions, where the effect of loading conditions and the number of load applications are
reasonably dissociated and has been used on different materials across different research projects
(Hornych & El Abd 2004).
This type of generic relationship which dissociates the effect of the loading variable from the
loading effect, are easily fitted to laboratory data, by adopting a two-stage process. Firstly, an
adjustment of the function parameters is performed, followed by the function parameter fitting.
This strategy is particularly suited to permanent deformation tests which involve different loading
conditions (different stress path / ratio and different magnitudes).
3.3
Pavement Performance Prediction Models
The majority of the documented research was focused on modelling the permanent deformation
from laboratory data, with only a few of the tested models implemented with the goal of predicting
full-scale pavement deformation. This means that there are few examples where the generated
models were implemented in a pavement model and compared to pavement performance data.
Pavement performance methods can be roughly ranked according to a coarse classification in
terms of gradual complexity (Hornych & El Abd 2004):
1
The first group consists of the simplest methods which involve the definition of a design
criterion in terms of stress level and using this to generate the level of permanent
deformation.
The second group consists of simplified approaches whereby the permanent strains are
calculated using a layer strain approach involving the granular layer being divided into a
number of horizontal sub-layers, and the permanent strains are calculated on the basis of the
maximum (or average) stresses located in each sub-layer.
The most elaborate methods that involve a structural calculation of the permanent strains in
the pavement (or granular layer) using incremental permanent strain models, are placed in
the final group.
Austroads 2013
15
According this classification the approaches developed for pavement deformation calculation are
presented the following sections.
3.3.1
Permanent Deformation Approach Based Design Criterion
Based on a shakedown concept (Arnold et al. 2002, Werkmeister et al. 2001) a pavement design
approach had been developed which used the stress condition limits in order to stay within a
shakedown loading range (Range A in Figure 3.1). The shakedown loading limits were generated
based on laboratory tests conducted at different stress levels. From that, the stresses calculated
from the pavement response model were compared to the limit which allows the low or high risk of
permanent deformation to be estimated. This can be extended to a design approach although the
method does not include a time dimension (i.e. concepts of repeated loading cycles) because,
under the shakedown concept, permanent deformation is not supposed to develop with time. This
method is similar to the endurance limit for fatigue cracking, but it does not provide a prediction tool
when loading conditions or climatic conditions change.
Theyse (2007) developed an original approach based on a stress criterion. Using a set of RLT
tests with different stress levels, SRN curves (similar to curves commonly used in fatigue
analysis) were developed for several typical materials. These SRN curves related the stress
state using a single parameter the stress ratio (SR) to the number of loading cycles (N) which
lead to a given level of permanent deformation (in per cent). The stress ratio was calculated using
Equation 6.
=
where
1 3
1 3
=
1 3
3 2 45 + 2 1 + 2C 45 + 2
Applied major principal stress
Maximum allowable major principal stress (leading to failure),

function of C, , and 3
Minor principal stress, or confining pressure applied in the triaxial test
C, =
Cohesion and friction angle of the material
As shown in Figure 3.5 the SRN data was developed for high and low density (HD and LD
respectively) conditions as well as for two moisture conditions high and low saturation (HS and
LS respectively). Figure 3.5 highlights the major effect of moisture.
Austroads 2013
16
Source: Theyse (2007).
Figure 3.5: Example of permanent deformation SRN data
SRN relationship lines can be fitted to laboratory data to derive a pavement design method.
Theyse (2007) proposed the following approach to determine the thickness of a granular pavement
layer:
calculate the maximum stresses from a pavement response model
calculate the SR parameter from the calculated stresses and the shear strength parameters
the SRN curve allows the calculation of the number of load applications which lead to a
given permanent strain or total layer deformation (where = 1 ), assuming a constant

strain in the granular layer of thickness .
3.3.2
Permanent Deformation Calculated from a Layer Approach
Chen et al. (2004) developed a mechanistic-empirical model for pavement deformation. They
suggested that the pavement response under traffic loading consisted of both an elastic response
and a plastic response. The elastic response under a pulse load is recoverable, but in the
long-term, irreversible or permanent strain develops due to the repetition of the loading cycles.
The reversible deformation does not vary significantly with time, but the permanent strain rate
generally decreases with time.
The model proposed by Chen et al. (2004) was built assuming a general framework where different
load types could be considered. The permanent deformation which develops in layer of a
pavement under load type was assumed to follow the relationship described in Equation 7.
, () = ,

where
Permanent strain of the layer j reached after Nth application of the load type
i
Permanent deformation parameters
, () =
and
Vertical elastic (compressive) strain developed in layer j under a single load

of type i
Austroads 2013
17
Parameter reflects the ratio between permanent strain and elastic strain within the material layer
considered. The exponent represents the number of load cycles while the negative exponent
indicates a decreasing rate of permanent deformation.
This mathematical equation was developed to integrate the different load types and to integrate the
deformation with respect to depth for all the pavement layers. For the application presented by
Chen et al. (2004), this last step was accomplished by assuming that there was a constant
reversible strain with respect to depth (practically extracted at mid-depth). This model could be
implemented for all material types (i.e. asphalt, base, subbase and subgrade) of pavement which
are monitored in Taiwan. The elastic response was calculated with a commercially available finite
element software package. A three-dimensional analysis was undertaken with advanced
modelling time and temperature dependent asphalt, and unbound granular materials were
assumed to behave according to the Drucker-Prager model. The parameters used in the
pavement response calculation are not detailed in the paper.
The permanent deformation parameters were determined by undertaking a back-analysis which
matched the permanent deformation data to the model response by adjusting the parameters
and for each layer. With regards to granular material, the model parameters did not show
values for the exponent and it is not clear whether the contribution of the granular layer was kept
constant regardless of the number of cycles used in the modelling process.
The data presented showed the efficiency of the approach in predicting the rut depth for a given
number of loading cycles; however, there was no evidence that indicated the calculated permanent
deformation rate matched the field performance. From the results, the authors concluded that total
pavement rutting was found to increase when the pavements were loaded and then overloaded.
However, when looking at each layers contribution, the presented results showed a decrease of
subgrade deformation for higher loads. This trend was not explained in the paper, and does call
into question the relevance of the approach.
A different layer approach for pavement rutting performance has been adopted in
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) in the USA as a pavement design tool.
Further details are presented in Section 3.4.
3.3.3
FEM Approach Based on Deformation Calculation in a Pavement Cross-section
Heck (2001) and El Abd (2006) developed a general finite element model for pavement analysis.
To predict the development of rut depth resulting from load repetitions, the resilient stresses were
calculated and then used, using a dedicated rutting program, to calculate permanent deformation
in a cross-section of the pavement. The stress path i.e. stress tensor function of time, was
recorded at each point in the 2D finite element mesh for a cross-section as shown in Figure 3.6. At
these points in the mesh, permanent deformation was calculated using an empirical material model
which was developed and fitted to several laboratory repeated triaxial tests.
Austroads 2013
18
(a)
(b)
Source: El Abd (2006).
Figure 3.6: 3D mesh (a) and associated 2D mesh, (b) for rut depth calculation
Permanent deformation was modelled using a mathematical expression which comprised the
product of a function of the number of cycles and a function of the stress tensor invariants.
El Abd (2006) used a deformation model (Equation 8), developed by Gidel et al. (2001).
1 ()
where
0
0
1 1
1

+
1 , , and
Four model parameters
Atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)
Length of the stress path, lmax = pmax 2 + qmax 2
The model parameters in Equation 8 were fitted from repeated triaxial tests conducted under a
range of loading conditions to obtain different / ratios. A cumulative process was implemented
to take into account temperature variations, load variations and load wandering. The cumulative
rut depth was calculated taking into account the number of occurrences and the probability of each
environmental condition occurring.
Several assumptions have been tested by El Abd (2006). He determined that the best match was
obtained by modelling both base and subgrade rutting. The results of rutting prediction
superimposed on the records of field performance are given in Figure 3.7a. These plots present
the measured rut depth (black lines) and the predictions (red line) versus the number of load
passes. From a pavement design standpoint, a simplified approach was also developed. This
involved a one-dimensional integration of a vertical line for the permanent strain under the wheel
path. The results obtained for rut depth prediction (blue line) were in the same range but slightly
overestimated compared to the analysis of the entire cross-section deformation as shown in
Figure 3.7b.
Austroads 2013
19
(a)
(b)
Note: X axis refers to the number of load application and Y axis refers to the rut depth of the tested pavement.
Source: El Abd (2006).
Figure 3.7: Comparison of predicted and field rut depth relationships (a) FEM 2D approach, (b) simplified 1D method
In this study, rut depth predictions were found to be underestimated compared to field
measurements. Quantitatively, the simulated results were quite different to results from the field
performance. The authors noted that the modelling approach still remains a simplification of the
real conditions in the pavement over a long testing period. In particular, the moisture content of the
material was assumed to be constant, and the author suggested that this simplification should be
subject to further research in order to improve understanding and accuracy. The experiments were
conducted over four months and the model only represents an average variation of temperatures
and assumes average moisture content. Possible daily variation could have a significant impact on
the rutting rate. In addition to this, only the total deformation was recorded during the experiment
without separation of each layers contribution. An assessment of each layers deformation could
be considered for future studies.
3.3.4
FEM Approach Based on Deformation Calculation under the Loading Wheel
The permanent deformation calculation in a full cross-section of the pavement as in Section 3.3.3
shows that a simplified approach, limited to the sum of the permanent deformation increment at the
centre of the load path, does not differ by much in terms of prediction quality. The major difference
is the difficulty in considering the transverse wandering of the load, although in the pavement
prediction presented in Figure 3.7, the simplified approach provided deformation increases of less
than two millimetres relative to the entire surface deformation.
Methods based on resilient stress
Arnold and Werkmeister (2010) applied Arnolds model to calculate the permanent strain rate from
the resilient stresses using Equation 4. To calculate the deformation in the pavement, the stresses
were computed from a pavement stress analysis. Permanent deformation increments were
calculated at each point under the centre of the load and summed to obtain the accumulated
surface deformation.
An example of the total pavement deformation associated with each layers contribution is shown
in Figure 3.8.
Austroads 2013
20
Source: Arnold and Werkmeister (2010).
Figure 3.8: Example of predicted pavement deformation derived from Arnolds approach
The pavement deformations were generally well predicted up to one million loading cycles. The
method clearly demonstrated the ability of dissociating each granular layer deformation. The main
difference between measured and predicted deformations was observed for a weak subgrade
(CBR 2%) where the surface deformation was overestimated by approximately 2 mm.
Methods based on resilient strains
Stevens (2005) developed a response to load model based on a finite element method and
developed a rut prediction method to predict pavement deformation data obtained in CAPTIF
accelerated loading tests in New Zealand. This approach was based on a description of the
permanent deformation once the rate had stabilised. During that stage, the permanent
deformation rate was calculated as a function of the resilient strain extracted from the FEM stress
analysis. The relationship obtained on a set of multi-stage RLT tests (Arnold 2004) is presented in
Figure 3.9.
Source: Stevens (2005).
Figure 3.9: Resilient strain versus plastic strain rate relationships
Austroads 2013
21
As the approach was based on the stabilised permanent deformation rate, the permanent
deformation data obtained in CAPTIF was taken only after 100 000 loads applications. It was
assumed that before that stage, deformation was related to initial post-construction deformation
and not related to the steady-state regime. The resilient strains were then calculated using a
nonlinear finite element pavement model.
A similar approach was used by Arnold and Werkmeister (2010), were the permanent deformation
rate was formulated in regards to the resilient strain (Equation 3). The permanent strain rate model
was calibrated for the different materials also tested in experimental pavements under accelerated
loading. The method assumed a constant permanent deformation rate and, to take into account
the initial deformation (also termed post-construction deformation), an additional model was
implemented to identify the component with a similar power law relationship with respect to the
elastic strain. Figure 3.10 illustrates the prediction quality and shows that pavement deformation
was predicted accurately. Results obtained for six pavements of the same material type, but with
differing base course thicknesses and different axle loads, showed an average difference of
approximately 1 mm between predicted and calculated deformations (an average relative
difference of 20%).
In one example, the contribution of the post-compaction was found to be around half of the
deformation obtained after one million axle loadings. This highlighted the main contribution of the
early-stage deformation in the final surface deformation.
Source: Arnold and Werkmeister (2010).
Figure 3.10: Example of permanent deformation versus load cycles from Werkmeister approach
Vuong (2007) derived a structural analysis method, implemented using a finite element method
framework, based on the model presented in Equation 2. The model was again based on the
resilient strain calculation under the wheel loads. Resilient strains were validated against strain
measurements under full-scale loading conditions. All of the permanent strains were computed
and summed under the wheel path. Figure 3.11 shows the comparison between the predicted
surface deformation and the measured pavement deformation under ALF.
Austroads 2013
22
Source: Vuong (2007).
Figure 3.11: Predicted permanent deformation under 40 kN dual-wheel load compared to ALF pavement deformation
The predicted deformation obtained by Vuong matched the measured values when the model did
not take into account the lateral load wandering although, when the model was refined to cater for
different lateral positions of the load as applied under ALF, the permanent deformations were
significantly underestimated.
3.3.5
Main Pavement Models Characteristics
The results presented in the previous sections demonstrate the effectiveness of structural analysis
restricted to a calculation under the wheel load. The approach results in a good compromise
between the ability to calculate pavement rutting performance and the simplicity of numerical
implementation.
With the objective of developing a performance-based approach for predicting the deformation
performance of unbound granular pavements, these methods provide the following advantages:
the performance of each pavement material can be taken into account, based on laboratory
performance tests
the contribution of each layers deformation contribution to the total surface deformation can
be calculated separately
the computation times are reasonable.
In the future, more advanced methods might be developed, providing alternatives for the study of
permanent pavement deformation. In the interim, however, the simplified approach will provide
major improvements to current unbound granular pavement rut prediction and design processes.
Austroads 2013
23
3.4
Performance-based Approach used in Pavement Design
The pavement approach adopted in Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) in

the USA comprises a performance-based performance relationship that predicts rutting of unbound
granular layers (Equation 9). This work was derived from the findings of Tseng and Lytton (1989)
which were originally based on RLT test results.
1 () = 1 0
where
1 () = Axial permanent strain
0 , and
= Number of load applications

= Material parameters
For vertical deformation in a granular layer, the permanent strain expression must be scaled by the
ratio of the vertical strain in the pavement over the axial resilient strain during the triaxial tests as
described Equation 10.
1 ()
where
1 0
Maximum vertical strain in the layer given by the response model
Resilient strain of the material under the triaxial test conditions used to adjust
the model parameters
10
Within a pavement structure, the approach can be applied for each granular layer. A pavement
response to load calculation is required to calculate the maximum vertical elastic deformation in
each of the layers and then, assuming a constant deformation with depth, the permanent
deformation of each unbound granular layer can then be calculated as shown in Equation 11.
0
() = 1
where
()
=
=
Layer deformation reached after load applications
Calibration factor
Thickness of the layer
Other terms as previously defined
Austroads 2013
24
11
A recent review of the AASHTO performance relationships (Austroads 2012c) summarised the
different types of relationships which have been defined to improve the prediction quality of the
model. The calibration of the method is ultimately based on engineering judgment for a wide range
of materials. Nevertheless, this method appears to be the first implementation of a fully
performance-based approach for unbound granular material permanent deformation prediction for
pavement design.
3.5
Candidate Material Performance Relationships
Based on the reviewed literature, several performance equations based on resilient stresses were
chosen. The general form of the permanent deformation models chosen to be tested is shown in
Equation 12:
() = () (, )
where
()
()
( )
3.5.1
12
Permanent deformation reached after load application

Number of loading cycles
Mathematical function of the single variable
Generic function of the stress tensor invariant components
Maximum magnitude of the mean stress during a loading cycle
Maximum magnitude of the deviatoric stress during a loading cycle
Empirical Relationship for Rutting versus Loading Cycles
As defined by Sweere (1990) and tested by other researchers (e.g. Hornych & El Abd 2004),
Equation 13 represents a simple form for the function. In this function, the deformation rate of
crushed rock exhibits a decreasing rate during the first and potentially second phase of the total
deformation. This type of power law relationship requires that 0 < < 1.
1 () =
where
and
Number of loading cycles
Two model parameters (decreasing deformation rate if 0 < < 1)
13
An alternative relationship relating permanent deformation to the of number load cycles was
proposed by Hornych et al. (1993). This relationship was characterised by a hyperbolic
relationship and is shown in Equation 14.
2 () = 1
where
, & 0
= Number of loading cycles

= Model parameters
Austroads 2013
25
14
The permanent deformations calculated from Equation 14 plateau after a finite number of load
cycles, which is different to the form of the function in Equation 13, which trends to a constant
value when extrapolated for large values of . The parameter 0 in Equation 14 defines the
number of cycles where the permanent deformation is assumed to start. It is a parameter which
sets the number of cycles before which the deformation is deliberately not defined as permanent
deformation. It can be chosen as a means of separating the initial part of the deformation from the
long-term performance characterisation. As written in Equation 14, parameter must have a
positive value in order to describe a decreasing rate of permanent deformation.
3.5.2
Empirical Relationship for Rutting versus Loading Conditions
The first equation tested, was developed by Lekarp and Dawson (1998). The equation relates the
permanent deformation to the stress conditions as shown in Equation 15.

1 , =
where
and
15
Maximum reached during a loading cycle

Atmospheric pressure ( = 100 kPa)
Length of the loading path in the plots, = 2 + 2

Two model parameters
According to Lekarp et al. (2000b) there was insufficient evidence to make a robust conclusion as
to whether the shear envelope should be accounted for and if the transition limit represented in the
model reflects behaviour under rolling wheel loads. Gidel et al. (2001), however, found that an
alternative relationship, which still made use of the shear envelope parameters, provided a better
agreement on a separate set of data. This relationship is also used Equation 16.
2 , =
where
and
1 0
16

Length of the loading path in the plots = 2 + 2

Two model parameters
Austroads 2013
26
3.5.3
Four Candidate Relationships used for the First Assessment
The feasibility study used all combinations of the two equation forms for the functions, and the
two forms for the function. The resulting four relationships examined in the study are
summarised in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Summary table of the deformation relationships tested during the feasibility assessment
No.
Function
Function
Full permanent deformation model

() =
() =
Name
Sweere-Lekarp

() = 1

() = 1
0
Austroads 2013
27
Sweere-Gidel
Hornych-Lekarp
Hornych-Gidel
AVAILABLE DATA
The previous Austroads research project (Austroads 2010) was focused on assessing the
relevance of current rut resistance characterisation approaches. In the project, four different
crushed rock materials (Appendix B) were selected for testing in the laboratory and for use at the
Accelerated Loading Facility (ALF). The project involved laboratory characterisation of the
materials using both RLT tests and wheel-tracking tests. Pavement performance was empirically
quantified by using ALF as it had the ability to provide data for a full-scale pavement in a controlled
environment.
4.1
Wheel-tracking Tests
The original wheel-tracking tests of the four base materials were conducted using a large asphalt
wheel-tracker owned by RMS NSW. This device was jointly developed with the Australian Asphalt
Pavement Association in 1989/1990 and is shown in Figure 4.1.
The dimensions of the mould used to compact the slab specimen were 700 mm long, 500 mm wide
and 300 mm deep. Each material was prepared to the test moisture content and then compacted
into the mould in six layers each 50 mm thick to the test dry density. The test moisture and density
were specified to closely match those used during the ALF testing.
Source: Austroads (2010).
Figure 4.1: Extra-large wheel-tracker machine
To inhibit evaporation of moisture from the compacted bases, the top of the base was sealed by
applying a coat of polyurethane. This seal was left to cure overnight.
Each base was then loaded with a single tyre (125/75R8) inflated to 700 kPa and loaded to 10 kN.
The tyre had an overall diameter of about 380 mm, a contact width of 90 mm and a contact length
of 125135 mm (Figure 4.2).
Austroads 2013
28
Source: Personal communication from Roads and Maritime Services in NSW (9 February 2012).
Figure 4.2: Wheel print area measurement
The shape of the contact surface can be simplified for modelling purposes. It can easily be
modelled by a rectangular or an elliptical surface. As a first approximation the modelling approach
presented in the next sections was developed assuming an elliptical contact area
(length = 135 mm, width = 90 mm). This provided an average uniform contact stress of 1048 kPa.
The deformation at the top of the slab was measured after 10 000 cycles of loading. The results
from the wheel-tracker for the four base materials are shown in Figure 4.3.
Wheel tracking deformation
14
Crushed hornfels PI=8
12
Crushed tuff
10
Maximum
deformation
(mm)
6
Crushed limestone
4
2
Crushed rhyolite
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Cycles of loading
Figure 4.3: Wheel-tracking results obtained on the four materials
Each of the deformation curves for the four materials were used to fit the new rutting performance
model.
4.2
Static Triaxial Shear Strength
The shear strength of the four bases was measured in accordance with the Australian Standard
(AS 12896.4.11998). The target densities and moisture contents for testing were the mean
values of the ALF test sections. The actual densities and moisture contents of each test
specimens are listed in Table 4.1 which also summarises the results of model parameters c and .
In this table, the parameter and of the shear envelope in the plane are also presented.
Austroads 2013
29
Table 4.1: Specimens used in the shear strength triaxial testing program
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Crushed rhyolite
2.28
Crushed hornfels
2.33
Material
Mean and deviatoric

plane pq
Mohr Coulomb
Frictional angle,
(degree)
Cohesion,
c
(kPa)
S
(kPa)
3.0
60
70
2.4
98
4.8
57
68
2.3
103
Crushed limestone
2.27
4.9
57
40
2.3
60
Crushed tuff
1.77
15.0
48
60
2.0
107
4.3
Full-scale Pavement Performance Data
4.3.1
Pavement Configuration
The configuration of the pavement that was used throughout the ALF testing program is shown in
Figure 4.4. The four different materials used in the unbound granular section of the pavements
were: crushed rhyolite, crushed hornfels with added fines, crushed limestone and crushed tuff. All
four pavements were modelled using APADS v1.0 for this report (Austroads 2012b).
Figure 4.4: Pavement configuration
4.3.2
Deformation Data
The permanent deformations resulting from ALF trafficking were determined using a transverse
profilometer.
Most of the pavements were tested under a dual wheel assembly with a load of 60 kN but for the
materials where the deformation developed very quickly, the testing plan was adjusted so that
additional testing was conducted with the load applied lowered to 40 kN. The testing conditions
used for the tests are shown in Table 4.2.
Austroads 2013
30
Table 4.2: ALF loading conditions

Material
Experiment
ALF loading (kN)
Crushed rhyolite
3401
60
3403 Ch 9 to 12 m
60
3403 Ch 12.5 to 19 m
60
3404
60
3405 Ch 34 to 39 m
40
3405 Ch 39.5 to 44 m
40
3407 Ch 21.5 to 25.5 m
60
3407 Ch 26 to 31.5 m
60
3409 Ch 9 to 12 m
40
3409 Ch 12.5 to 19 m
40
3410
60
Crushed hornfels
Crushed limestone
Crushed tuff
The observed surface deformations for the four base materials tested are summarised in
Figure 4.5 to Figure 4.8. Additional details of the transverse profiles are also included in
Appendix C and these present the change in the profile of the pavements for the different number
of loading cycles.
The pavements constructed with modified hornfels material exhibited heaving on the shoulders of
the wheelpaths as shown in Figure C 1. This type of shear failure is typically not what the
permanent deformation model is designed to predict and therefore, the deformation data pertaining
to load cycles greater than 2300 cycles must be cautiously compared with predicted values. This
is because from this point onwards, the permanent deformation process is coupled with a severe
shear failure of the material at the surface of the pavement which has not been observed during
wheel-tracking tests.
Mean deformation
(mm)
15
Crushed rhyolite
14
13
12
11
Experiment 3401
60 kN loading
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420
Cycles of ALF loading (kcycles)
Figure 4.5: Permanent deformation of crushed rhyolite under accelerated loading
Austroads 2013
31
Mean deformation
(mm)
26
Crushed hornfels
24
22
20
18
Exp 3405 40kN

Ch 34 to 39 m
Exp 3404 60kN
Exp 3403 60 kN
Ch 12.5 to 19 m
16
14
Exp 3403 60kN

Ch 9 to 12 m
12
10
Exp 3405 40kN

Ch 39.5 to 44 m
8
6
4
2
0
10
Figure 4.6: Permanent deformation of crushed hornfels under accelerated loading
Crushed limestone
Mean deformation
(mm)
15
14
13
Experiment 3407
60 kN loading
12
Ch 21.5 to 25.5 m
11
10
Ch 26 to 31.5 m
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
Figure 4.7: Permanent deformation of crushed limestone under accelerated loading
Austroads 2013
32
Mean deformation
(mm)
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
20
40
Crushed tuff
Experiment 3410
60 kN loading
Experiment 3409
12.5 to 19m
40 kN loading
Experiment 3409
9 to 12m
40 kN loading
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
Figure 4.8: Permanent deformation of crushed tuff under accelerated loading
4.4
Data Summary
For each material, the moisture and density conditions during the wheel-tracking tests were
matched as closely as possible to the conditions present when the pavements were tested under
ALF loading. This meant that the combined data set could be considered consistent in terms of
material properties and was believed to offer the best conditions in which to undertake the first
calibration/prediction trials as well as to evaluate the potential accuracy of this new prediction
method.
The permanent deformation models gathered from the literature were tested according to the
following three-stage process:
The permanent deformation model parameters were calibrated for each of the four materials
previously tested using the wheel-tracking laboratory test data this was called the model
calibration stage.
The permanent deformation calculations in the pavement (ALF pavement configuration) were
performed using parameters established during model calibration this was the pavement
prediction stage.
The predicted deformation was compared to the measured deformation under ALF this
step was termed the validation stage.
Austroads 2013
33
WHEEL-TRACKER FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
The modelling approach required the development of an analytical FEM model to calculate the
permanent deformation for wheel-tracking test conditions.
5.1
Wheel-tracker Model
In the wheel-tracker, the specimen is confined within a mould. Modelling the response of a
specimen to a load required that the 3D model account for the effect of the boundary conditions
imposed by the mould. The nonlinear elastic model used for unbound granular materials (the
Universal model) previously adopted (Austroads 2012b) had been previously implemented in a 2D
environment (APADS v1.0). The equation adopted for the stress dependent modulus and
presumptive material model parameter values for pavement base materials are detailed in
Appendix A. As a 3D model was necessary, the granular material model was implemented in an
alternative 3D finite element program available for research called Cast3M (CEA 2011).
5.1.1
Validation of Material Model Implementation
The implementation of the model in the Cast3M software was validated by a comparison of the
finite element response from a load calculated with the APADS finite element model previously
developed for pavement calculation (Austroads 2012b). In order to achieve this, the Universal
model parameters were set up using presumptive values for a high quality crushed rock. The
material model parameters used were taken from a previous report (Austroads 2012b) and are
reproduced here in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Presumptive parameters for the nonlinear characterisation of a high quality crushed rock base
Material
k1
(MPa)
k2
k3
High quality crushed rock base
250
1.0
0.25
(MPa)
(MPa)
Emax
RCS
(kPa)
50
1000
40
0.35
Emin
Note: = Poissons ratio, Emin= minimum modulus, Emax= maximum modulus, RCS= residual compaction stress.
To compare the pavement response calculated by the two software packages, a simple pavement
model was defined comprising a single pavement layer over a stiff subgrade (Young modulus,
Esub = 10 000 MPa). The element meshes for the two models are shown in Figure 5.1. In the 3D
model the stiff subgrade was modelled by the boundary condition on the bottom surface of the
model.
(a) 2D single layer model in APADS
(b) 3D single layer pavement model in Cast3M
Figure 5.1: Pavement models used for FEM implementation validation
Austroads 2013
34
The two models were defined to have similar conditions, in order to provide a way of comparing the
responses and validate the implementation in the new finite element software program used for the
3D implementation.
In Figure 5.2a and b respectively, the vertical stresses and the vertical deflection at the top surface
are compared. The results obtained from the two programs can be seen to be superimposed
except for the stresses determined at the edge of the loaded surface where local differences were
noticed. The maximum difference between the two model responses was below 1%. Based on
this outcome, the implementation of the universal model in the 3D environment of Cast3M was
considered to have been validated.
(a) Vertical stress applied
(b) Vertical surface deflection
Figure 5.2: Comparison responses from 2D and 3D models
5.1.2
Definition of a Loading Cycle
A typical wheel-tracking test consists of a rolling wheel over the surface of a slab specimen. Full
modelling of the wheel-tracker test, including modelling the rolling action of the wheel moving from
one side to the other, was found to be very time consuming and thus not practical. To address this
issue, a numerical strategy was implemented wherein the maximum and minimum loading
conditions were defined instead. Figure 5.3 indicates the three extreme situations used to define a
loading cycle for the wheel-tracking tests. During a tracking cycle, the wheel moves from the left
edge of the slab, passes the centre, reaches the right edge, and then returns towards the left edge,
passing the centre a second time.
(a) Wheel on the left side
(b) Wheel at centre
(c) Wheel on the right side
Figure 5.3: Deformed mesh for three typical locations of the wheel load (half of the slab is modelled)
Whilst undergoing wheel-tracking, a point located in the central location was loaded cyclically.
Figure 5.4 shows the mean and deviatoric components of the stress observed at central locations
in the slab versus the location of the wheel.
Austroads 2013
35
Given that the model used was elastic and all the plots were symmetrical, when the load was on
the left/right extreme locations, the stress parameters and at the centre of the slab were
negligible which meant that both were approximately equal to zero. When the wheel moved
toward the centre of the slab, the stress components increased to reach a maximum value. The
maximum value was reached when the load was centred except right at the surface where the
shear component was affected by the edge effect of the loaded surface.
(a) Mean stress, p
(b) Deviatoric stress, q
Figure 5.4: p and q stresses at the centre of the slab versus the location of the wheel
In the central cross-section, the magnitudes of the loading parameters (stresses or strains) were at
a maximum when the load was located at the centre of the slab. For the permanent deformation
model, the stress parameters were calculated based on this maximum loading condition.
5.1.3
Model used for the Wheel-tracker
The finite element model used to calculate the slab response was used to calculate the permanent
deformation when the slab specimen was loaded at its centre by the wheel. When the wheel was
at the centre of the slab, a finite element mesh representing a quarter of the slab was used due to
the two planes of symmetry. Figure 5.5 shows the mesh and boundary conditions used.
Figure 5.5: Wheel-tracker finite element model: mesh and boundary conditions
Austroads 2013
36
To facilitate calculations, friction was considered negligible between the material and the mould
sides. At the slab boundaries, only the normal (to the mould surface) component of the
displacement was considered to exist. Furthermore, the wheel induced contact stress was
assumed to be uniform. Based upon data relating to contact area provided in Section 4.1, the
wheel-print was assumed to be elliptical. The dimensions were defined as length set to 135 mm
(trafficking direction) and width equal to 90 mm (in the transverse direction). The resulting constant
vertical contact stress was equal to 1048 kPa.
During the experiments, a membrane is placed on the specimen to prevent moisture loss from the
top surface of the crushed rock slab (Section 4.1). This membrane is made of a flexible material
(polyurethane or alternative materials) and laid in thin (less than 1 mm) thickness. The membrane
is not modelled in the stress analysis as it is not considered to add any structural contribution and
should not have significant effect of the material stresses. This assumption is consistent with
common practice in pavement stress analysis where the sprayed seal is not considered in the
calculation.
5.2
Permanent Deformation Calculation
5.2.1
General Integration Assumptions
Permanent deformation was calculated in several increments as a function of the stresses given in
the response to load model. The deformation mechanism incorporated the following assumptions:
1
The crushed rock materials were assumed to be elasto-plastic, hence the total strain in the
material could be described according to Equation 17.
= +
where
Total strain tensor
Elastic strain tensor (resilient strain)
Plastic or permanent strain tensor (irrecoverable)
17
During a loading cycle, the permanent strain increment was very small compared to the
reversible strain (RLT test data validates this assumption except for a few cycles at the
beginning of a test) as shown in Equation 18.

18
If the permanent deformation process generated some internal stresses, they were assumed
to be negligible and were assumed to not affect the stress state of the material.
The effect of permanent deformation on the resilient behaviour of a material was assumed to
be not significant this assumption was supported by repeated triaxial tests which were
performed until the material reached a major failure state during the first cycles of the test.
In order to simplify the analysis, the calculations were restricted to one location i.e. at the centre of
the slab. This also simplified the subsequent back-analysis calibration activities.
Austroads 2013
37
CALIBRATION OF THE PERMANENT DEFORMATION

MODELS
The permanent deformation models selected in Section 3.5 were calibrated using wheel-tracking
data. The fitting procedure was developed based upon the nonlinear solver function of Microsoft
Excel software. The solver adjusted the parameters of the material permanent deformation
model so that the resulting calculated deformations matched the deformations observed in the
laboratory wheel-tracking tests.
6.1
Material Stress Conditions
To facilitate the development of material parameters used in the permanent deformation models,
the stress paths and their respective failure envelopes were plotted for each material (Figure 6.1)
using the results derived from the wheel-tracker finite element model (Section 5.1.3).
(a) Rhyolite
(b) Hornfels
(c) Limestone
(d) Crushed tuff
Figure 6.1: Calculated pq stress path under the wheel in the wheel-tracker compared to the material shear envelope
From the plotted stress paths of each material, it is clear that the stress conditions calculated for
limestone and tuff specimens violated the predicted shear failure envelopes under the maximum
stress condition i.e. the wheel load directly over the centre of the test specimen.
Austroads 2013
38
According to the g2 function model (see Table 3.4) developed by Gidel et al. (2001) the permanent
strain would have been infinite for those materials. For the purposes of this feasibility trial, these
two materials were excluded from the study for the permanent deformation relationship derived
from the Gidel expression.
6.2
Parameters to be Adjusted
In an ideal situation, the modelling calibration approach would adjust all the parameters of the
material permanent deformation relationship (Section 3.5.3). Unfortunately the wheel-tracking data
was only available under a single loading condition. But for a single test condition with a given
load magnitude the permanent deformation part (from the sub-function g) does not change as it
only depends on stresses. It is not numerically possible to adjust the parameters of that function
with the set of data available.
There is no restriction to incorporating extra data performed at different loading conditions (for
example, load magnitude and inflation pressure) in this method; however, at this stage in the
project, and with the data currently available, presumptive values in the range of what has been
found in the literature were used.
The appropriateness of the assumed values for these parameters can only be inferred from the
degree to which the predicted full-scale ALF deformations matched the observed deformations.
Previous research undertaken using the models provided some presumptive values for the model
parameters. A summary is presented in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Range of permanent deformation model parameter values from the literature
Relationship
Equation
Range
>1
1, 3
(Section 3.5.3)
() = ()
Parameter values not reported. > 1

deduced from the shape of the presented
curves
= 3.76 (UGM 0/20 mm micro-granite)

= 2.42
(sand)(1)
= 0.65 (0/20 mm crushed limestone)

= 0.595 (0/10 mm micro-granite)(2)
2, 4
(Section 3.5.3
1
2
() = ()
Reference
Lekarp and Dawson
(1998)
Hornych and El Abd

(2004)
Gidel et al. (2001)
= 0.62 (UGM 0/20 micro-granite)
Hornych and El Abd

(2004)
= 0.122 (UGM crushed gneiss)
Hornych and El Abd

(2004)
= 0.36
(sand)(1)
= 0.89 (0/20 mm crushed limestone)
Hornych (2008)
Gidel et al. (2001)
= 0.588 (0/10 mm micro-granite)
Calibration done on the permanent strain reached after 10 000 of each stage of a multistage test (correlation index R 0.70.8).
The model was improved and included and exponent for the stress path length factor( / ) , where Lekarp and Dawson (1998) found = 1. For the
crushed limestone = 1.14 and = 0.698 for the micro-granite.
For the relationship developed by Lekarp and Dawson (1998) the exponent was found to be
positive with values below and greater than one. In this feasibility study, the model was tested at
given values of = 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 to assess the prediction potential.
Austroads 2013
39
For the relationship developed by Gidel et al. (2001) the exponent was found to be between zero
and one. The model was tested at given values of = 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9 to assess the
prediction potential.
6.3
Model Parameters Calibration
For the purposes of the feasibility study, model calibration was performed by minimising the
distance between the modelled permanent deformation and the wheel-tracking data. To assess
the fitting quality of each model, the average distance between the observed data points and the
model predictions was calculated.
The Sweere (1990) power law relationship was selected to be tested in the study (Section 3.5.1).
The relationship is given in Equation 19 and the parameters and were calibrated against the
wheel-tracking data obtained for the four materials (Figure 4.3).
f1 (N) = A N B
where
and
19
Number of loading cycle
Two model parameters (decreasing deformation rate if 0 < < 1)
The model was fitted to each of the test results obtained for the different materials for different
values of the parameter. Results are presented in Section 6.3.1.
The other relationship was based on a hyperbolic empirical equation proposed by Hornych et al.
(1993). The relationship shown in Equation 20 required the parameters and to be similarly
calibrated.

2 () = 1
0
where
, and 0
20
= Number of loading cycle

= Model parameters
Calibration results obtained for this relationship are presented in Section 6.3.2.
6.3.1
Power Law Relationship

Table 6.2: Model parameters fitted on wheel-tracker tests data for the Sweere-Lekarp relationships
Material
Rhyolite
Hornfels
Average residuals of fitted parameters (mm)
0.50
7.769
0.095
0.200
0.75
6.280
0.095
0.200
1.00
5.017
0.095
0.200
2.00
1.925
0.095
0.200
3.00
0.704
0.095
0.200
0.50
7.984
0.244
0.400
Austroads 2013
40
Material
Limestone
Tuff
Average residuals of fitted parameters (mm)
0.75
6.479
0.244
0.400
1.00
5.169
0.245
0.400
2.00
2.007
0.244
0.400
3.00
0.748
0.243
0.400
0.50
4.043
0.219
0.170
0.75
3.314
0.218
0.170
1.00
2.639
0.219
0.170
2.00
1.025
0.219
0.170
3.00
0.378
0.218
0.170
0.50
22.743
0.135
0.870
0.75
18.446
0.135
0.870
1.00
14.887
0.135
0.870
2.00
5.811
0.135
0.870
3.00
2.134
0.136
0.870
(a) Rhyolite
(b) Hornfels
(c) Limestone
(d) Crushed tuff
Figure 6.2: Model fitting results for the Sweere-Lekarp relationships (n = 1)
Austroads 2013
41
Table 6.3: Model parameters fitted on WT tests data for the Sweere-Gidel relationships
Material
Rhyolite
Hornfels
2.43
2.33
98.4
102.9
Average residuals of fitted parameters

(mm)
0.3
11.150
0.096
0.23
0.5
8.205
0.096
0.23
0.7
5.970
0.096
0.23
0.9
4.366
0.096
0.23
0.3
7.969
0.246
0.40
0.5
5.945
0.243
0.40
0.7
4.267
0.244
0.40
0.9
3.076
0.244
0.40
0.3
Limestone
2.33
60.5
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.3
Tuff
2.43
67.5
The calculated stresses exceeded the static shear failure envelope:

the model was not applicable (see Section 6.1)
0.5
0.7
0.9
(a) Rhyolite
(b) Hornfels
Figure 6.3: Model fitting results for the Sweere-Gidel relationships (n = 0.3)
Austroads 2013
42
6.3.2
Hyperbolic Relationship
Table 6.4: Model parameters fitted on wheel-tracker tests data for the Hornych-Lekarp relationships
Material
Rhyolite
Hornfels
Limestone
Tuff
Average residuals of fitted

parameters (mm)
1.00
11.883
0.231
0.16
2.00
4.553
0.231
0.16
3.00
1.665
0.231
0.16
1.00
309.896
0.021
1.29
2.00
118.466
0.021
1.29
3.00
39.204
0.024
1.31
1.00
186.301
0.012
0.38
2.00
74.930
0.012
0.38
3.00
26.757
0.012
0.38
1.00
94.157
0.075
0.58
2.00
36.758
0.075
0.58
3.00
13.576
0.076
0.58
(a) Rhyolite
(b) Hornfels
(c) Limestone
(d) Crushed tuff
Figure 6.4: Model fitting results for the Hornych-Lekarp relationships (n = 1)
Austroads 2013
43
Table 6.5: Model parameters fitted on wheel-tracker tests data for the Hornych-Gidel relationships
Material
Rhyolite
Hornfels
2.43
2.33
98.4
102.9
Average difference of fitted parameters

(mm)
0.3
28.480
0.219
0.16
0.5
20.883
0.220
0.16
0.7
15.123
0.220
0.16
0.9
10.930
0.220
0.16
0.3
440.840
0.021
1.29
0.5
315.538
0.022
1.30
0.7
235.507
0.021
1.29
0.9
168.381
0.021
1.29
0.3
Limestone
2.33
60.5
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.3
Tuff
2.43
67.5
The calculated stresses exceeded the static shear failure envelope: the
model was not applicable (see Section 6.1)
0.5
0.7
0.9
(a) Rhyolite
(b) Hornfels
Figure 6.5: Model fitting results for the Hornych-Gidel relationships (n = 0.3)
Austroads 2013
44
6.4
Analysis of the Model Calibration
6.4.1
Shear Resistance Parameters
As indicated in Section 6.1, the calculated stresses in the wheel-tracker FEM model were found to
exceed the shear stress envelope for the limestone and tuff materials. As a consequence, the
permanent deformation relationships derived from the Gidel et al. (2001) model (No. 2 and 4 in
Table 3.4) were not applicable as the factor function of the stress envelope parameters
( + )1 could not be determined. The origins of this parameter were RLT test
results that had shown that stress states closer to the shear envelope provided significantly higher
permanent deformation (Gidel et al. 2001). The form of this relationship leads to infinite
deformation when the stress states are on the shear envelope, and hence the relationship cannot
be used when the stresses exceeded the shear envelope.
Although the shear parameters were used in the model calibration of this feasibility study, the
appropriateness of using a static shear strength limit for the loading stress state when dealing with
cyclic loading is still widely debated in literature. This point is discussed in Lekarp et al (2000b)
and Lekarp, Richardson and Dawson (1996). Another approach was adopted by Werkmeister
(2003) to capture the transitions in permanent strain rate for different stress states; however, this
process requires the undertaking of specific RLT tests on the material in order to define the
boundaries between the different ranges A, B and C (Figure 3.1). The data set used to conduct
this feasibility study did not include these types of RLT test results.
If further research confirms that the loading conditions (wheel imprint and constant vertical contact
stress described in Section 4.1) chosen for the wheel-tracker and the resilient stresses calculated
from the Universal nonlinear model (discussed in Section 5.1.3) are relevant, that might mean that
the static shear envelope is not a relevant threshold to represent failure under cyclic loadings.
These aspects could be further investigated by additional data in the research project TT1611:
Improved Rut Resistance Characterisation of Granular Bases where a new wheel-tracking test
method is being developed for unbound granular materials and the subsequent Austroads
research programs.
6.4.2
Accuracy of Model Fitting
The fitting procedure was conducted for each of the four materials tested in the wheel-tracker
results. Using the Sweere (1990) power law relationship with respect to the number of loading
cycles, the average distance between the fitted model and the observed deformation in the
laboratory was found to be below 1 mm. The best model fit was obtained for the rhyolite and
limestone materials where the average distance between the experimental data point and the fitted
model was below 0.2 mm. For the hornfels and tuff materials the average distance was 0.4 and
0.9 mm respectively.
For the hyperbolic relationship (Hornych et al. 1993) the average distance between the data and
the fitted curve was 0.2, 0.4, 0.5 and 1.3 mm, for rhyolite, limestone, tuff and hornfels materials
respectively.
It was concluded that the fitted models provided relatively accurate descriptions of the
deformations that occurred during the laboratory tests.
Austroads 2013
45
6.4.3
Forms of Calibrated Models
For each of the four base materials, Figure 6.6 shows the Sweere-Lekarp predicted deformation at
various cycle counts of the wheel-tracker tests. The wheel-tracker tests terminated at 10 000
cycles of loading, and so the calibration of the model was only possible using data up to this cycle
count. The data model form shown beyond 10 000 cycles is simply an extrapolation of the
calibrated model. The extrapolated Sweere-Lekarp model predicts wheel-tracker deformation in
the same ranking order that was observe red in the previous project (Austroads 2010), and this is
the same ranking that was observed under full-scale ALF trafficking.
However, the deformations predicted by the Hornych-Lekarp model (Figure 6.7), were not able to
distinguish between the hornfels and tuff crushed rocks.
Figure 6.6: Comparison of calculated wheel-tracking permanent deformations for various materials using the
Sweere-Lekarp model
Figure 6.7: Comparison of calculated wheel-tracking permanent deformations for various materials using the
Hornych-Lekarp model
Austroads 2013
46
PAVEMENT DEFORMATION PREDICTION
This section discusses the prediction of the permanent deformations of the full-scale pavements
tested by ALF using the deformation models fitted to the wheel-tracking results.
7.1
Pavement Structures and Input Parameters
The full-scale pavement structures tested by ALF had the configuration shown in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1: Pavement configuration
When modelling the ALF pavement structures the thicknesses of all layers were assumed to be the
theoretical thicknesses as shown in Figure 7.1. The double/double sprayed seal was not modelled
in the pavement finite element model because its structural contribution was supposed to be
negligible. The unbound granular material was the only layer that was considered to be nonlinear
elastic; the other layers are assumed to behave according to the linear elastic model.
The selection of input parameters for use in the pavement model is discussed in the following
sections.
7.1.1
Unbound Granular Material Parameters
The unbound granular materials were modelled using the nonlinear Universal model (Austroads
2012b). Initial elastic moduli were taken from repetitive load triaxial test (RLT) results (using the
Australian Standards method) reported in Austroads 2010. The unbound granular materials were
considered to be isotropic. Poissons ratio was taken from the presumptive values for crushed rock
base listed in Austroads (2012b). Bulk densities were calculated by taking the mean dry density of
the full depths of each unbound granular material (measured in situ) and adjusted using the mean
moisture content (also measured in-situ). For each granular material, the Universal model k1, k2, k3
values were taken from the closest matching sample (Appendix B in Austroads 2012b). Sample
matches were based first on material type, then on relative density and relative moisture content.
Austroads 2013
47
The cohesion constant and friction angle came from the static shear strength data contained in
Austroads (2010). Maximum and minimum limits of the moduli, i.e. Emax and Emin, were taken from
the presumptive values for crushed rock base used in Austroads (2012b) as well as the residual
confining stress (RCS) for all base and subbase unbound granular materials.
7.1.2
Cement Treated Subbase
The cement treated base was modelled linearly. Bulk density was derived by taking the mean from
the densities measured in the experiment (Austroads 2008b). All other input values were
presumptive values.
7.1.3
Sand and Crushed Rock and Clay
The sand layer was modelled linearly. The initial modulus was an assumption used in Austroads
(2008a), which refers to a former experiment at the ALF site that utilised the same sand subgrade
material. The sand from this experiment was left in the test site when the new pavements were
constructed. All other input values were presumptive values.
The lower crushed rock and clay materials were modelled as a single layer. The layer was
modelled linearly. The bulk density values were derived from general values for compacted clay.
All other input values were presumed.
7.1.4
Summary of Material Parameters used
Table 7.1 summarises the model input parameters used for linear materials models, and Table 7.2
lists the values used in the nonlinear modelling of the crushed rock base materials.
Table 7.1: Linear input parameters
Initial modulus (MPa)
Poisson's ratio
Thickness
(mm)
Vertical
Horizontal
Vertical
Horizontal
Crushed rhyolite
350
400
400
0.35
0.35
2.39
Crushed hornfels
350
420
420
0.35
0.35
2.50
Crushed limestone
350
510
510
0.35
0.35
2.47
Crushed tuff
350
210
210
0.35
0.35
2.08
Cement treated subbase
150
5000
5000
0.4
0.4
2.22
Sand
180
100
100
0.4
0.4
1.7
Crushed rock/clay
75
80
80
0.4
0.4
1.75
Material
Bulk density (t/m3)
Table 7.2: Nonlinear input parameters

Material
k1
(MPa)
k2
k3
Cohesion
(kPa)
Friction
angle
(degrees)
E min
(MPa)
E max
(MPa)
RCS (kPa)
Crushed rhyolite
154
1.06
0.25
70
60
50
1000
40
Crushed hornfels
146
0.94
0.23
68
57
50
1000
40
Crushed limestone
216
1.03
0.29
40
57
50
1000
40
Crushed tuff
56
1.09
0.29
60
48
50
1000
40
Austroads 2013
48
7.2
Wheel Load and Pavement Model
7.2.1
Modelling the Wheel Load
From the given tyre pressure (750 kPa) and force (30 kN per tyre), the radius of the tyre contact
area was calculated assuming the contact area of the tyre was circular and the contact stress was
uniform. Therefore the dual tyre rolling load of 60kN was modelled as two circular loads of radius
112.8 mm and pressure 750 kPa. The calculated contact area of the wheel load was chosen to be
consistent with Austroads (2012a) but it must be recognised that there are alternative ways of FEM
modelling the actual load applied to the pavement which may be implemented in the future. For
the feasibility study presented in this report, the model was simplified using the standard
procedures used in the current pavement design method.
7.2.2
Pavement Finite Element Mesh
The 2D finite element mesh used is presented in Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.2: Finite element mesh used to model the experiment pavements
The pavement responses to load were calculated using the nonlinear elastic analysis process and
tools developed in Austroads (2012b). The response under a dual wheel is simplified by
superimposing the responses of the two calculations, each modelling one of the two tyre loads
(Austroads 2012b).
7.2.3
Pavement Permanent Deformation Calculation
The experimental pavements were designed to isolate the permanent deformation in the crushed
rock base layer of the pavement. The cement treated subbase offered a stiff support which did not
deform during the experiments. The FEM calculation of the permanent deformation was, therefore,
performed for the base layer only. The deformation calculation was undertaken using the same
principle as that applied for the wheel-tracking test modelling where the deformation is calculated
under the wheel-path. The permanent deformation was integrated along a vertical line centred
under the wheel load to obtain the resulting vertical deformation at the top of the pavement.
Austroads 2013
49
During this feasibility study, there was no consideration of load wandering in the model, i.e. it was
assumed that the wheel path is located at the same transverse position throughout the full
experiment. This assumption provided an upper bound of the deformation compared to the
deformation obtained when the transverse position of the load changes is modelled (El Abd 2006,
Vuong 2007).
7.3
Predicted Pavement Permanent Deformation
Predictions of the deformation of the four bases were made using each of the four calibrated
models described in Table 3.4. The predicted permanent deformation from the model was then
compared with the deformation measured during ALF experiments. The analyses undertaken
showed that the Sweere-Lekarp combination model gave the best predicted pavement deformation
match to the observed deformation under ALF loading.
7.3.1
Predicted Pavement Deformation using Sweere-Lekarp Relationship
The Sweere-Lekarp model predicted pavement deformation compared to the ALF pavement
deformation for the four pavements are presented in Figure 7.3. Pavement predictions were
performed using the parameters calibrated on the wheel-tracking laboratory tests (Table 6.2)
without any further refinement or additional calibration factor.
(a) Rhyolite
(b) Hornfels
(c) Limestone
(d) Crushed tuff
Figure 7.3: Model prediction results for the Sweere-Lekarp relationship
Austroads 2013
50
For the limestone material in particular the pavement performance prediction was particularly good,
and predicted deformation similar in range to the measured deformation (Figure 7.3c).
Significantly, both initial deformation and the permanent deformation rate predictions were in
accordance with the field observation.
The model was generally able to replicate a similar deformation pattern to the empirical data,
particularly at cycles below 50 000, where the model was able to simulate the increased rate of
deformation before the deformation rate stabilises in the long-term. For rhyolite, there was a
tendency for the model to under-predicted the total deformation, while for hornfels and crushed tuff
there was a tendency for the model to over-predict the total deformation observed at the beginning
of pavement testing. From there, the predicted deformations developed at lower rate than
observed on the pavements and reached a final deformation in the range of the final deformation
recorded during the experiments.
It can also be seen from Figure 7.3 that as the value of the model parameter (Relationship 1 in
Table 3.4) was increased, the entire predicted deformation curve was shifted downwards.
7.3.2
Predicted Pavement Deformation using Other Relationships
Pavement deformation predictions obtained by applying the three other relationships are shown in
Appendix D.
The Sweere (1990) relationship was also combined with Gidel et al. (2001) to form the
Sweere-Gidel model. Using the Sweere-Gidel model to predict permanent pavement deformation,
it was found that the model performed poorly when compared to the empirical data obtained from
the ALF consistently under-predicting the true deformation (Figure D 2). As the number of cycles
increased, deformation stabilised and converged to a fixed value. The Sweere-Gidel model could
not be used to predict the deformation of the limestone and tuff materials as the plotted stress path
derived from the wheel-tracker slab model had exceeded the material shear envelope. When
conducting a sensitivity test on the model parameter , it was observed that modifying this value
had little effect on the overall shape of the deformation curve.
Another relationship which was studied was the combination of Hornych et al. (1993) and Lekarp
and Dawson (1998) functions. The primary difference between the Hornych et al. (1993) and
Sweere (1990) mathematical functions is that the Hornych relationship predicts a stabilisation of
permanent strains, while the Sweere relationship predicts an exponential growth, with increasing
number of loading cycles. In predicting the permanent deformation of the four base materials
(Figure D 3), it was observed that the model performed reasonably well for the first few thousand
cycles for crushed tuff and hornfels; however, as the number of cycles increased, calculated
deformations stabilised resulting in a poor prediction over time. The material parameter had
minimal impact on the shape of the deformation curve, although increasing the value had the
effect of shifting the curve downwards.
The final relationship which was tested was a combination of Hornych et al. (1993) and Gidel et al.
(2001). When used to predict the deformation of the four materials, it was observed that the
Hornych-Gidel model performed very poorly (Figure D 4). As with the Hornych-Lekarp model, the
rate of deformation stabilised as the number of cycles increased, resulting in a very flat curve.
Performing a sensitivity test on the material parameter , it was observed that varying this value
had little effect on the shape of the deformation curve.
Austroads 2013
51
CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS
8.1
Literature Survey and Approach
An analysis of current literature has shown that the stress rotation caused by rolling wheel loads
has been found to have a significant effect on the development of permanent deformation of
unbound granular materials. These stress rotations are not easily modelled under laboratory
conditions and require complicated equipment and testing procedures. However, the advantage of
using wheel-tracker data for characterising materials is that it is representative of the cyclic wheel
loading experienced by in-service pavements. In the slab specimen, the moving load induces
stress rotations similar to those that occur under normal traffic conditions.
The literature review conducted presented several different relationships that have been developed
to model the growth of permanent strain in unbound granular material subject to cyclic loadings. In
most of the cases, the performance relationships were decomposed into two components. The
first component gave the influence of the loading cycles on the growth (rate) of permanent strain.
The second component gave the effect of the loading conditions. Resilient stresses were more
widely used to model the loading conditions, but in a few models the resilient strain was used.
Several methods for pavement deformation calculation were found. The layer based approach
was not selected for initial use, and an alternative simplified calculation of the surface deformation
was chosen. The result was a sum of the local permanent strain along a vertical line below the
applied load.
The approach developed was a classical performance-based approach, wherein a material
performance model was fitted from laboratory test data. The fitted parameters are used as
full-scale material performance parameters and they are incorporated into a pavement model for
deformation prediction.
8.2
The Finite Element Models and Assessment of the Feasibility
A 3D finite element model was developed to calculate the resilient stresses in the wheel-tracker
specimen. The permanent strains were computed at the centre of the slab specimen below the
wheel load. The resilient stresses from the model were successfully used to calculate the surface
deformation at the centre, as a function of the number of cycles.
The fitting procedure based on the Microsoft Excel solver was found efficient enough for the
purposes of the feasibility study as it allowed the model parameters to be calibrated for each type
of relationship. Using the parameters derived, the prediction of pavement surface deflection
showed the following:
A relationship based on combining the Sweere (1990) function (relating deformation to the
number of load applications) and the Lekarp and Dawson (1998) function (relating the stress
conditions to the deformation) was found to give the best agreement with the experimental
pavement deformation (Relationship No. 1 in Table 3.4).
The prediction results for the limestone pavement provided the best match between
predicted surface deformation and the observed one under full-scale ALF loading.
For the other materials two types of patterns were observed. For one material, the predicted
initial deformation and the rate were smaller than the observed for the tested pavements,
resulting in an overall underestimation of the pavement surface deformation. For the
materials which exhibited a higher deformation under ALF the predicted initial deformation
was higher and the long-term deformation rate was smaller than the data from the tested
pavements.
Austroads 2013
52
The results presented in this report clearly demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed
performance-based approach, although the quality of the pavement prediction depends on the
relationship used, and the quality varies from one material to another. The results obtained so far,
without any calibration factor from the laboratory assessment to the field predictions, are very
encouraging. It must be recognised, however, that the general approach does not provide
sufficient prediction accuracy and so some further investigation and development are required.
8.3
Suggestions for Further Work
For the feasibility study, the wheel load applied to the pavement was simplified when compared to
the real loads under a truck tyre. It is considered relevant to evaluate the effects of the wheel load
modelling assumptions on the prediction results.
Additionally, the results showed that the prediction quality was dependent on the type of
relationship used. In the future, a wider panel of candidate models should be tested to determine if
another type is preferable than the one tested for this study.
The wheel-tracking data available for this feasibility study only comprised one test for each
material. New data from the research project TT1611 Improved Rut Resistance Characterisation
of Granular Bases will provide new data and allow refining of the calibration procedure.
The feasibility exercise clearly showed the difficulty in calibrating the parameters for a function
which comprises loading stress parameters, if the laboratory test data was collected with only a
single stress state. It might be beneficial to investigate different loading conditions in the laboratory
wheel-tracking test allowing improvements in the fitting procedure. Wheel-tracking tests at
different loading levels, or with different loading stages similar to those used in RLT tests, should
provide a more robust and improved fitting procedure.
Austroads 2013
53
REFERENCES
Arnold, G, Dawson, A, Hughes, D, Werkmeister, S & Robinson, D 2002, Serviceability design of granular
th
pavement material, International conference on bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields, 6 ,
Lisbon, Portugal, Balkema, Lisse, Netherlands, vol.2, pp. 95766.
Arnold, G 2004, Rutting of granular pavements, PhD thesis, Nottingham Transport Engineering Centre,
University of Nottingham.
Arnold, G & Werkmeister, S, 2010, Pavement thickness design charts derived from a rut depth finite element
model, report 427, NZ Transport Agency , Wellington, New Zealand.
Austroads 2008a, Fatigue performance of cemented materials under accelerated loading: influence of
vertical loading on the performance of unbound and cemented materials, APT102/08, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2008b, Optimum use of granular bases: construction of test pavements, APT93/08, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010, Assessment of rutresistance of granular bases using the repeated load triaxial test, AP
R360/10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012a, Guide to pavement technology: part 2: pavement structural design, AGPT0212,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012b, Development of a nonlinear finite element pavement response to load model, APT199
12, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012c, Review of AASHTO Pavement Design Guide performance relationships, APT20212,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Barksdale, RD 1972, Laboratory evaluation of rutting in base course materials, International conference on
the structural design of asphalt pavements, 3rd, London, United Kingdom, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, USA, vol.1, pp.16174.
CEA, Cast3M, CEA, France, viewed July 2012, <http://www-cast3m.cea.fr/ >.
Chan, FWK, 1990, Permanent deformation resistance of granular layers in pavements, PhD thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham.
Chen, JS, Lin, CH, Stein, E & Hothan, J 2004, Development of a mechanistic-empirical model to
characterize rutting in flexible pavements, Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 130, no. 4, pp.
51925.
Dawson, A & Kolisoja, P 2006, Managing rutting in low volume roads: executive summary, Roadex III
project, Swedish Road Administration, Lulea, Sweden.
El Abd, A 2006, Dvelopment dune mthode de prediction des dformations de surface des chausses
assises non traites, (in French), PhD thesis, University of Bordeaux.
Gidel, G, Hornych, P, Chauvin, JJ, Breysse, D & Denis, A 2001, A new approach for investigating the
permanent deformation behaviour of unbound granular material using the repeated load triaxial
apparatus, Bulletin de liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, (in French), no. 233, pp.5
21.
Austroads 2013
54
Heck, JV 2001, Modlisation des dformations rversibles et tude des dformations permanentes des
enrobs bitumineux : application l'ornirage des chausses, (in French), PhD thesis, Ecole Centrale
de Nantes.
Hornych, P, Cort, JF & Paute JL 1993, Etude des dformations permanentes sous chargements rpts de
trois graves non traites, Bulletin des Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, (in French),
vol. 184, pp. 4555.
Hornych, P, Kazai, A & Quidel J 2000, Modelling a full scale experiment of two flexible pavements with
th
unbound granular bases, International symposium on unbound aggregates in roads, 5 , Nottingham,
United Kingdom, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 35967.
Hornych, P & El Abd, A 2004, Selection and evaluation of models for prediction of permanent deformations
of unbound granular materials in road pavements, report SAM05DEC10, SAMARIS project, Forum
of European National Highway Research Laboratories (FEHRL).
Hornych, P 2008, Etude exprimentale et modlisation du comportement des matriaux de chausses non
traits, (in French), Habilitation thesis, University of Bordeaux.
Huurman, M 1997, Permanent deformation in concrete block pavements, Doctoral thesis, Delft University of
Technology.
Khedr, S 1985, Deformation characteristics of granular base course in flexible pavements, Transportation
Research Record, No. 1043, pp. 13138.
Kim, IT & Tutumluer, E 2005, Unbound aggregate rutting models for stress rotations and effects of moving
wheel loads, Transportation Research Record, no.1913, pp. 419.
Larsen, H & Ullidtz, P 1997, Pavement subgrade performance study in the Danish road testing machine,
th
International conference on asphalt pavements, 8 , 1997, Seattle, Washington, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, vol. 1, pp. 84357.
Lashine, AKF, Brown, SF & Pell, PS 1971, Dynamic properties of soils, report No. 2, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nottingham, UK.
Lekarp, F, Richardson, IR, & Dawson, A 1996, Influences on permanent deformation behaviour of unbound
granular materials, Transportation Research Record, no.1547, pp. 6875.
Lekarp, F & Dawson, A 1998, Modelling permanent deformation behaviour of unbound granular materials,
Construction and Building Materials, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 918.
Lekarp, F, Isacsson, U & Dawson, A 2000a, State of the art. I: resilient response of unbound aggregates,
Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 6675.
Lekarp, F, Isacsson, U & Dawson, A 2000b, State of the art. II: permanent strain response of unbound
aggregates, Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 7683.
Nishi, M, Yoshidan, N, Tsujimoto T & Ohashi K 1994, Prediction of rut depth in asphalt pavements,
th
International conference on the bearing capacity of roads and airfields, 4 , 1994, Minneapolis, USA,
Danish Road Institute, Roskilde, Denmark, pp. 100719.
Papin, JW 1979, Characteristics of granular material for pavement analysis, PhD thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nottingham.
Austroads 2013
55
Paute, JL, Jouve, P, Martinez, J & Ragneau, E 1988, Modle de calcul pour le dimensionnement des
chausses souples, Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, (in French),
no. 156, pp. 2136.
Paute, JL, Hornych, P & Benaben, JP 1996, Repeated load triaxial testing of granular materials in the
French network of Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, Flexible pavements: proceedings of the
European symposium Euroflex, 1993, Lisbon, Portugal, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp.5364.
Perez, I & Gallego, J 2010, Rutting prediction of a granular material for base layers of low-traffic roads,
Construction and building materials, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 34045.
Shenton, MJ 1974, Deformation of railway ballast under repeated loading (triaxial test), report RP5, British
Railways Research Department, UK.
Stevens, BD 2005, The development and verification of a pavement response and performance model for
unbound granular pavements, PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
Sweere, G 1990, Unbound granular bases for roads, PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Theyse, H 1997, Mechanistic-empirical modelling of the pavement deformation of unbound pavement
th
layers, International conference on asphalt pavements, 8 , 1997, Seattle, Washington, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, vol. 2, pp. 157994.
Theyse, H 2007, A mechanistic-empirical design model for unbound granular pavement layers, DEng
thesis, University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
Thom, NH & Dawson, AR 1993 , The permanent deformation of a granular material modelled using hollow
cylinder testing, Flexible pavements: proceedings of the European symposium Euroflex, 1993, Lisbon,
Portugal, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 97128.
Tseng, K & Lytton, R 1989, Prediction of permanent deformation in flexible pavement materials, Implication
of aggregates in the design, construction and performance of flexible pavements, STP 1016, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, pp. 15472.
Uzan, J 1992, Resilient characterisation of granular material, International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol.16, no. 6, pp. 45359.
Vuong, BT 1994, Evaluation of back-calculation and performance models using a full scale granular
pavement tested with the accelerated loading facility (ALF), International conference on the bearing
th
capacity of roads and airfields, 4 , 1994, Minneapolis, USA, Danish Road Institute, Roskilde,
Denmark, pp. 18397.
Vuong, BT, 2006, 2006, Modelling of response and deformation of granular pavements, ARRB Conference,
nd
22 , 2006, Canberra, ACT, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic., 17p.
Vuong, BT 2007, Predicting response and performance of granular pavements with thin bituminous surfaces
under heavy vehicles using three-dimensional non-linear finite element model, International
conference on advanced characterisation of pavement and soil engineering materials, 2007, Athens,
Greece, Taylor and Francis, Leiden, Netherlands, vol. 1, pp. 41129.
Werkmeister, S, Dawson, A & Wellner, F 2001, Permanent deformation behaviour of granular materials and
the Shakedown concept, Transportation Research Record, no. 1757, pp.7581.
Werkmeister, S 2003, Permanent deformation behaviour of unbound granular materials in pavement
constructions, PhD thesis, Technical University of Dresden.
Austroads 2013
56
Wolff, H & Visser, AT 1994, Incorporating elasto-plasticity in granular layer pavement design, Proceedings
of Civil Engineers Transport, vol. 105, no.4, pp. 25972.
Standards Australia
AS 1289.6.4.11998, Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes: soil strength and consolidation tests:
determination of compressive strength of a soil: compressive strength of a specimen tested in
undrained triaxial compression without measurement of pore water pressure.
Austroads 2013
57
APPENDIX A
A.1
MATERIAL MODEL USED FOR UNBOUND

GRANULAR MATERIALS
Nonlinear Elastic Model
Unbound granular material and subgrades exhibit a complex behaviour depending on the loading
stress state. There are several mathematical models to predict the resilient modulus. The
equation developed by Uzan (1992), has been used in many instances to obtain the resilient
parameters 1 to 3 , of pavement materials.
The equation is as follows (Equation A1):
= 1
where
A.2
2 3

Resilient modulus
Atmospheric pressure
Mean stress ( 3i=1 i with i : principal stresses)
Material constant
1
3
Octahedral shear stress
Presumptive Values for Base and Subbase Materials
For base and subbase materials, the following four qualities of unbound granular materials were
adopted. The first two qualities are consistent with Austroads (2012a):
high quality standard crushed rock base
normal quality standard crushed rock base
upper granular subbase
lower granular subbase.
Material parameters developed in Austroads (2012b) are presented in Table A 1, including the
residual compaction stress parameter incorporated in the model.
Austroads 2013
58
A1
Table A 1:
Typical presumptive parameters for the nonlinear characterisation of unbound granular materials
Material
k1
(MPa)
k2
k3
(t/m3)
C
(kPa)
()
Emin
(MPa)
Emax
(MPa)
RCS
(kPa)
High quality crushed rock

base
250
1.0
0.25
2.2
70
55
50
1000
40
0.35
Normal quality crushed rock

base
220
1.0
0.25
2.2
70
50
50
1000
40
0.35
Upper subbase
175
0.9
0.25
2.2
80
45
50
1000
40
0.35
Lower subbase
150
0.8
0.25
2.2
90
45
50
1000
40
0.35
= Poissons ratio.
Emin = minimum modulus.
Emax = maximum modulus.
= density.
c = cohesion.
= angle of internal friction.
RCS = residual compaction stress.
Austroads 2013
59
APPENDIX B
PAVEMENT MATERIALS DESCRIPTION
A detailed description of the unbound granular materials from Austroads (2010) is presented in
Table B 1.
Table B 1:
Description of unbound granular materials
Austroads 2013
60
APPENDIX C
PAVEMENT DEFORMATION
Examples of the transverse profile changes during ALF loading are given in Figure C 1. Note that
after about 15 mm deformation the crushed hornfels sheared and the material heaved outside the
loaded area.
Surface
profile
(mm)
5
Surface
profile
(mm)
50
Crushed rhyolite Experiment 3401 Ch 26.5 m
loaded area
Crushed hornfels Experiment 3403 Ch 17 m

loaded area
40
30
0
20
10
-5
kcycles
0.3
kcycles
-10
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.8
1.3
2.3
4.3
6.3
9.0
-10
-20
100.3
237.9
-30
407.3
-15
-1.2
-40
-1.2
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
1.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Transverse distance (m)
Surface
profile
(mm)
5
Crushed limestone Experiment 3407 Ch 23.5 m
Surface
profile
(mm) 5
Crushed tuff Experiment 3410 Ch 25.5 m
loaded area
loaded area
0
-5
-5
kcycles
kcycles
-10
-10
0.3
9.0
60.5
109
191.7
237.1
-15
0.3
2.4
9.0
-15
22.0
53.3
101.1
-20
-20
155.9
285.2
-25
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
-25
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Transverse Distance (m)
Figure C 1: Examples of transverse deformation profiles during ALF tests, showing the heaving of the crushed hornfels
outside the loaded area and between dual wheels due to shear failure
Austroads 2013
61
APPENDIX D
PREDICTED PAVEMENT DEFORMATION
The pavement permanent deformation was calculated using different relationships. Section 7.3
presents the predictions obtained by the best fitting model, the Sweere-Lekarp relationship
(Table 3.4). This appendix contains the predictions obtained for the three other relationships used.
D.1
Results Obtained with the Sweere-Gidel Relationship
For this model the permanent deformation relationship is recalled in Equation A2.
() =
where
A2
Axial permanent deformation (derived from RLT tests)
Number of load applications
Length of the loading path in the graph = 2 + 2
and
Shear envelope parameters calibrated from static shear strength tests
and
Two model parameters of the sub-function with regards to the number of

loading cycles
Parameter of the stress parameters sub-function

From Table 4.1, the shear resistance parameters and of the materials were used in the model.
There was not enough data at this stage to properly calibrate the parameter regarding the stress
state in the material. Values in the range of the data found in the literature were used here to
evaluate their effect on the quality of the prediction.
For the four tested materials and different values the model was successfully calibrated on
laboratory wheel-tracking data (model parameters are listed in Table 6.3) except for the limestone
and tuff materials. For this particular material the stress states calculated in the wheel-tracker
model under the wheel exceeded the shear envelope. In that situation the term
( + )1 of the relationship cannot be calculated.
Figure D 2 shows both predicted and measured deformations.
Austroads 2013
62
(a) Rhyolite
(b) Hornfels
Figure D 2: Model prediction results for the Sweere-Gidel relationship
D.2
Results Obtained with the Hornych-Lekarp Relationship
For this model the permanent deformation relationship is recalled (Equation A3).
() = 1
where
Number of load applications (0 = 1)
=
=

loading cycles
and

Length of the loading path in the graph: = 2 + 2

Austroads 2013
63
A3
For the four tested materials and different values, the model was successfully calibrated on
laboratory wheel-tracking data, and the model parameters can be found in Table 6.4 and applied in
the pavement deformation model. The predicted pavement deformation are shown in Figure D 3
and compared to the measured surface deformation.
(a ) Rhyolite
(b) Hornfels
(c) Limestone
(d) Crushed tuff
Figure D 3: Model prediction results for the Hornych-Lekarp relationship
Austroads 2013
64
D.3
Results Obtained with the Hornych-Gidel Relationship
For this model the permanent deformation relationship is recalled (Equation A4).

() = 1

0
where
A4
Number of load applications (N0 = 1)
Length of the loading path in the p q plots Lmax = pmax 2 + qmax 2
and
Shear envelope parameters calibrated from static shear strength tests
and

loading cycles
Maximum p reached during a loading cycle

Maximum q reached during a loading cycle
Atmospheric pressure (pa = 100 kPa)
From Table 4.1, the shear resistance parameters and of the materials were used in the model.
There is not enough data at this stage to properly calibrate the parameter in regards to the stress
state in the material. Values in the range of the data found in the literature were used here to
evaluate their effect on the quality of the prediction.
For the four tested materials and different values the model was successfully calibrated on
laboratory wheel-tracking data, and the model parameters can be found in Table 6.3 except for the
limestone and tuff materials. Figure D 4 shows both predicted and measured deformations.
(a ) Rhyolite
(b) Hornfels
Figure D 4: Model prediction results for the Hornych-Gidel relationship
Austroads 2013
65
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads, 2013, Feasibility Study of using Wheel-tracking Tests and
Finite Element Modelling for Pavement Permanent Deformation
Prediction, Sydney, A4, pp.70. AP-T228-13
Keywords:
unbound granular materials, permanent deformation, finite element model,
wheel-tracking tests, unbound granular pavement, prediction
Abstract:
This report assesses the feasibility of using an advanced analysis of
wheel-tracking test data, coupled with a pavement design approach to predict
the permanent deformation performance of unbound granular pavements.
The pavement rut resistance method currently used in the Austroads Guide to
Pavement Technology Part 2 - Pavement Structural Design globalises the
deformation in the unbound granular layers and in the subgrade, which does
not take into account the performance of each base and subbase material.
Base materials deformation significantly contributes to total pavement
deformation. Improved rut performance characterisation has been identified as
a key area of research for unbound base and subbase granular materials.
The first step towards developing an approach was to evaluate the permanent
deformation models available from the literature. The second was to build a
framework allowing both model calibration and pavement performance
prediction. This was completed using a 3D model of the wheel-tracker which
was developed to enable the analysis of the wheel-tracking test data in the
model calibration stage. The report also presents the model calibration using
previous laboratory data. Finally, the model was used to predict pavement
permanent deformation.

Austroads Technical Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austroads Technical Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-T228-13

AUSTROADS TECHNICAL REPORT

Feasibility Study of using Wheel-tracking Tests

Feasibility Study of using Wheel-tracking Tests and Finite Element

Austroads Ltd 2013

Austroads Project No. TT1715

Published by Austroads Ltd

Feasibility Study of using Wheel-tracking Tests

promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes

promote improved practice and capability by road agencies.

promote consistency in road and road agency operations.

Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales

Roads Corporation Victoria

Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland

Main Roads Western Australia

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania

Department of Transport Northern Territory

Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory

Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport

Australian Local Government Association

New Zealand Transport Agency.

Project Background and Objective ......................................................................................... 1

PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH ......................... 3

LITERATURE REVIEW OF MATERIAL AND PAVEMENT MODELS FOR

AVAILABLE DATA ............................................................................................................. 28

Wheel-tracking Tests ........................................................................................................... 28

WHEEL-TRACKER FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ................................................................. 34

Wheel-tracker Model ............................................................................................................ 34

CALIBRATION OF THE PERMANENT DEFORMATION MODELS ................................... 38

Material Stress Conditions ................................................................................................... 38

PAVEMENT DEFORMATION PREDICTION ....................................................................... 47

Pavement Structures and Input Parameters ........................................................................ 47

CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS ................................................................................... 52

Literature Survey and Approach........................................................................................... 52

MATERIAL MODEL USED FOR UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS ......... 58

Rutting mechanisms in granular pavement............................................................... 5

Flowchart of the proposed approach ........................................................................ 4

Permanent deformation of crushed limestone under accelerated loading ............... 32

Project Background and Objective

Current Austroads Permanent Deformation Model

The allowable number of repetitions of a Standard Axle at this strain before

New Approach Based on Finite Element Modelling

Scope of this Report

material model parameter calibration was performed (Section 6)

pavement deformation prediction was calculated (Section 7).

PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE-BASED

Figure 2.1: Flowchart of the proposed approach

LITERATURE REVIEW OF MATERIAL AND PAVEMENT

Pavement Deformation Mechanism

Rutting caused by compaction of non-saturated material. However,

Rutting that happens in weak granular materials. This rutting

When aggregate quality is good and uniform, then the pavement as a

Source: Dawson and Kolisoja (2006).

Permanent Deformation Rate for UGM

Source: Arnold et al. (2002).

Source: Lekarp et al. (2000a).

Figure 3.2: Load conditions under a wheel pass in a pavement

Empirical Models Derived from Laboratory Triaxial Tests

Relationship Permanent Deformation versus Number of Loading Cycles

a rapid increase of the permanent strain at the beginning of the process

Paute et al. (1988)

Wolff and Visser (1994)