See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308188328

Understanding Airfield Pavement Responses

Under High Tire Pressure: Full-Scale Testing
and Numerical Modeling

Chapter September 2016

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-42797-3_35

CITATIONS READS

0 26

3 authors, including:

Hao Wang Maoyun Li

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
95 PUBLICATIONS 405 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Maoyun Li on 21 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Understanding Aireld Pavement
Responses Under High Tire Pressure:
Full-Scale Testing and Numerical
Modeling

Hao Wang, Navneet Garg and Maoyun Li

Abstract This paper aims to investigate aireld flexible pavement responses under
heavy aircraft loading with high tire pressure through an integration of full-scale
testing and numerical modeling. The new generations of aircraft, such as Boeing
787 and Airbus 350/380, have tire pressure close to or exceeding 232 psi. Limited
information is available on the effect of high tire pressure on HMA pavement
responses. A new series of high tire pressure tests were conducted at the Federal
Aviation Administrations (FAA) heavy vehicle simulator-airport version (HVS-A)
Test Strips. An advanced three-dimensional (3-D) nite element (FE) model was
developed that characterized the hot-mix asphalt (HMA) layer as a viscoelastic
material to predict time- and temperature-dependent pavement responses under
various loading conditions. The accelerated pavement testing results indicate that
there is an insignicant effect of tire pressure on pavement rutting. The effect of tire
pressure was more signicant beyond failure (1 in. surface rut). This is consistent
with the previous ndings from high tire pressure tests. The numerical modeling
results show that as the critical pavement responses in the asphalt layer increased
slightly as tire pressure increased from 210 to 254 psi. The cross-anisotropic
non-linear behavior of granular base affects the tensile strains at the bottom of
asphalt layer signicantly. The comparison between predicted and measured strains
emphasizes the importance of considering the realistic tire-pavement interaction and
the appropriate constitutive model for each pavement layer. The numerical mod-
eling can support and supplement the full-scale testing results and provide valuable
suggestions for mechanistic-based aireld pavement design under heavy aircrafts
with high tire pressure.

Keywords High tire pressure

Accelerated pavement testing
Numerical




modeling Viscoelastic Cross-anisotropic Nonlinear modulus

H. Wang
M. Li
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, USA
N. Garg (&)
FAA Airport Technology R&D, WJHTC, Egg Harbor Township, USA
e-mail: Navneet.Garg@faa.gov

Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 539

J.P. Aguiar-Moya et al. (eds.), The Roles of Accelerated Pavement Testing
in Pavement Sustainability, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42797-3_35
540 H. Wang et al.

1 Introduction

Traditionally, aircraft tire inflation pressure ranges from 174 to 218 psi (1.2
1.5 MPa) depending on aircraft gross weights and landing gear congurations. The
new generations of aircrafts, like Boeing 787 and Airbus 350/380, have tire pres-
sure close to or exceeding 232 psi (1.6 MPa). This creates a challenge for the
traditional Pavement Classication Number (PCN) rating that includes four pres-
sure categories: W (no pressure limitation), X (218 psi [1.5 MPa] limitation), Y
(145 psi [1.0 MPa] limitation), and Z (72.5 psi [0.5 MPa] limitation) (ICAO 1983).
At the same time, the aircraft wheel load has increased signicantly with the
development of long-range wide-body aircrafts. Currently, the single wheel-load of
A380 and B777 are close to or exceed 60,000 lbs. Therefore, it is necessary to
investigate the impact of heavy aircraft wheel load with high tire pressure on airport
pavement performance.
Accelerated pavement testing (APT) provides an acceptable solution between
real eld pavement loading and laboratory tests to evaluate the loading and design
parameters on pavement damage. Accelerated pavement testing compresses many
years of pavement load-related deterioration into just a few months or weeks of
testing. During the APT, pavement responses to loading can be measured using
pavement instrumentation. The parameters that can be measured include strains,
stresses, deflections, moisture, temperature, etc. In situ measurements of pavement
responses allow for understanding the key factor affecting pavement responses and
developing accurate performance models for mechanistic-empirical pavement
design approaches. Pavement instrumentation has recently become an important
tool to monitor in situ pavement condition in response to loading and the
environment.
On the other hand, numerical modeling has become a powerful tool to simulate
pavement responses under different loading scenarios. The appropriate utilization of
numerical modeling could reduce the signicant efforts that are required for con-
struction of full-scale pavement sections and pavement instrumentation. After the
numerical model is calibrated and validated, the computational environment would
enable to consider different combinations of material properties, structure designs,
loading congurations, and environmental conditions. The numerical modeling
results can be also used to check the reliability and accuracy of measurements and
predict pavement responses that are difcult to measure in the eld. Modeling
analysis of pavement can be either based on the multilayer elastic theory (MLE) or
nite element model (FEM). The FEM approach is more powerful for pavement
analysis because it could simulate realistic tire-pavement interaction and complex
material behavior of each pavement layer.
Understanding Aireld Pavement Responses 541

2 Objective

This paper aims to investigate aireld flexible pavement responses under heavy
aircraft loading with high tire pressure through an integration of full-scale testing
and numerical modeling. A new series of high tire pressure tests were conducted at
the National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF) using the state-of-art heavy
vehicle simulator-airport version (HVS-A). An advanced three-dimensional (3-D)
nite element (FE) model was developed that characterized the hot-mix asphalt
(HMA) layer as a viscoelastic material and considered the cross-anisotropy and
stress-dependency of aggregate base layer. Preliminary results on critical pavement
responses under various loading conditions are presented and analyzed. The sim-
ulation results were compared to the measured pavement responses for model
calibration and validation.

3 Review of Previous Studies on High Tire Pressure

3.1 Boeing and FAA High Tire Pressure Test

A series of full-scale tests have been conducted at the National Airport Pavement
Test Facility (NAPTF) to evaluate pavement responses under aircraft loading with
high tire pressure. The rst high tire pressure test was initiated in 2005 by Boeing
(Roginski 2007). Three sections with different asphalt surface thicknesses (2, 4, and
6 in. [25, 100, and 150 mm]) were loaded by a single wheel at 2.5 mph (3.2 km/h).
The loading cycles were applied by increasing the load from 40,000 to 50,000 lbs
(178222 kN) and the tire pressure from 140 to 240 psi (0.961.65 MPa). The
results showed that higher tire pressure with maximum single wheel load of 55,000
lbs (245 kN) can produce increasing rutting depth or extensive cracks to pavement
failure. The testing was stopped when the rutting depth reached 0.50.75 in. (12.5
19 mm) or extensive cracking was observed. The pavement temperature during
testing was in the range of 7080 F. It was found that the rutting in the asphalt
layer was the main failure mode under heavy aircraft loading, and high tire pressure
had no adverse effect on flexible pavements that have stable asphalt layers and meet
thickness requirement.
A second series of high tire pressure testing was conducted in 2009 on heated
pavement sections (FAA 2010). The purpose was to duplicate the worst-case
conditions for pavement rutting likely to be encountered in the eld. Two different
heating methods, hydronic heating system with hot water pipes and electrically
heated wire mesh system, were used in the initial test sections. The test sections
were rebuilt with the strengthened pavement structure that included a 5-in. asphalt
surface layer and a 17-in. (432 mm) Econocrete base layer placed on the DuPont
542 H. Wang et al.

clay subgrade. Two asphalt binder grades (PG 64-22 and PG 76-22) were used. The
hydronic heating system was nally used since it was proven to be more reliable
than the electrical heating system. The pavement temperature was kept between 100
and 110 F during the cyclic loading process. Dual tires with 54-in. (137.2-cm)
spacing were used by using different levels of inflation pressure (210 and 245 psi
[1.45 and 1.69 MPa]) for each tire. The applied wheel loads were 52,500 and
61,300 lbs (234 and 273 kN) with three different wandering locations. The loads
were applied in one direction only with a trafcking speed of 1 ft/s (0.3 m/s). The
primary, secondary, and tertiary phases of rutting development were observed as
the loading cycles increased. It was found that the observed differences in rutting
depth were in the range 04 % due to the tire pressure effect.

3.2 Airbus High Tire Pressure Test

A series of high tire pressure tests were carried out in Toulouse, France by Airbus
and French STAC (Civil Aviation Technical Service) in 2010 to evaluate pavement
performance under multi-wheel loading of heavy aircraft (Airbus 2010). The Airbus
Heavy Trafc Simulator (HTS) was used in the test, which has full-scale landing
gear with modular assembly up to ve bogies and had the capacity of generating up
to 70,500 lbs (314 kN) for each single wheel with a maximum speed of 5 mph
(8 km/h). The simulator was equipped with A340 tires and the tire inflation pres-
sure could be adjusted to simulate other aircraft tires. Four dual-wheel assemblies
were used to apply different levels of wheel load and tire pressure that were suf-
ciently spaced enough to prevent any interaction between multiple wheels.
Seven test sections were designed according to the French airport pavement
design method for 10,000 passes of B747-400 gear. The pavement sections had a
10-in. (254-mm) asphalt layers with different thickness combination of surface and
base asphalt layers and a 15-in. subbase layer of untreated graded aggregate sup-
ported by a foundation. The loading congurations used in the test included two
load levels (57,400 and 66,400 lbs [255 and 295 kN]) and two pressure levels (218
and 254 psi [1.5 and 1.75 MPa]). The loading was applied on pavement up to
10,000 passes to cause the rutting depth of 0.50.75 in. (12.519 mm), which is
considered a medium severity rutting for airport pavement remediation. The aver-
age temperatures of asphalt surface layer were 6886 F (2030 C) in the initial
congurations and then increased to 104122 F (4050 C). The full-scale test
results showed that rut depth differences ranged from 0.075 to 0.2 in. (1.95 mm)
that varied depending on the magnitude of wheel loading. This indicated that the
increase of tire pressure from 218 to 254 psi (1.51.75 MPa) would not have critical
impact on the rutting development in the asphalt layer. The rutting initiation
appeared more affected by the average temperature in the asphalt layer than the
trafc condition or loading level.
Understanding Aireld Pavement Responses 543

4 Full-Scale Testing Using HVS-A

4.1 Test Program

The FAA accepted the Heavy Vehicle Simulator-Airport Version (HVS-A) at the
National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF) in November 2013. The HVS-A
was designed to apply single- and dual-wheel system that can load up to 100 kips
(445 kN) in a wandering range of 6 feet (0.15 m). The pavement surface temper-
ature in the chamber can be heated up to 150 F (65 C) and the test speed for the
simulated wheel loading ranges from 0.17 to 5 mph (0.278 km/h). It was designed
to accommodate the 5221.0R22 radial tire for single-wheel and smaller tires (such
as B737-800) would be assigned for dual-wheel assembly.
In the acceptance test of HVS-A, two pavement sections were built to evaluate
the effect of aircraft high tire pressure on responses of aireld flexible pavement.
The pavement structure is composed of a 10-in. (254-mm) asphalt layer (P401) with
the PG76-22 binder and a 15-in. (381-mm) aggregate base layer (P209). The
pavement sections were constructed on sandy subgrade with a California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) of 20. During construction, strain gauges were embedded at the
bottom of the asphalt layer and temperature gages were placed in the asphalt layer
at different depths (Fig. 1).
The accelerated pavement testing consisted of response tests and trafc tests. The
tire pressure was set to 210 psi (1.45 MPa) for tests on test strip-1 and 254 psi
(1.75 MPa) for tests on test strip-2. The objective of response tests was to study
asphalt concrete strains at different load levels. The pavement surface temperature
was 120 F (49 C) measured at a depth of 1 in. below pavement surface. The test
speed was 2 mph. Three levels of wheel loads were applied30,000, 40,000, and
50,000 lbs (133, 178, and 222 kN). The lateral wander pattern included ve wander
positions with the maximum offset of 20 in. (0.5 m) away from centerline. Data
from sensors embedded in pavement were collected for every loading cycle. Tests
on test strip-2 were performed after the trafc tests on test strip-1 were completed.

Fig. 1 Heavy Vehicle Simulator-Airport Version (HVS-A)

544 H. Wang et al.

Test parameters for trafc tests were mostly the same as the ones implemented in
response tests except the wheel load increased to 61,300 lbs (272 kN). Pavement
surface prole measurements were made using HVS-A on-board proler before the
start of trafc tests. After that, surface proles were measured after 18, 72, 144, 576,
1152, 2304, 4608, 9216 passes. Straight-edge rut depth measurements were mea-
sured at three locations (middle three blue lines on the test strips) at the same
intervals. The loading was applied in a predetermined wander pattern that simulates
a normally distributed trafc with approximate standard deviation of 12-in. (0.3 m)
and mean of zero. Each wander pattern consisted of 18 passes.

4.2 Test Results

Figure 2 shows the measured tensile strains from the response test at different load
levels, respectively, for longitudinal and transverse tensile strains. The time histo-
ries of tensile strains under the moving tire loading were plotted. All of the strain
gauges were embedded at the bottom of asphalt layer. Both the LSG-1 and LSG-2
gauges were embedded longitudinally at the centerline of the test strip. The TSG-2
gauge was embedded transversely at the centerline of test strip, while the TSG-2
strain gauge was embedded transversely at an offset of 28 in. away from the
centerline. Only the measured tensile strains under tire loading with the inflation
pressure of 210 psi (1.45 MPa) were reported here since the strain gauges in the test
strip-2 for testing at tire pressure of 254 psi (1.75 MPa) were damaged during
construction.
The longitudinal strains are negative values (compression) as the tire is far away,
then the positive values (tension) as the tire approaches the strain gage, followed by
the negative values (compression) again as the tire is leaving. On the other hand, the
transverse strains are always in tension or compression as the tire loading is
approaching and leaving, depending on the transverse offsets of strain gauges to the
loading location. This is because the direction of transverse strains was always
perpendicular to the tire moving direction. An unsymmetrical pattern of strain
shapes were observed for both longitudinal and tensile strains due to the vis-
coelasticity of asphalt mixture. The results clearly show that increasing loads
produced the greater peak values for the tensile strains. It is noted that the peak
values of longitudinal tensile strains were observed at different timings due to the
offset locations of the embedded strain gages.
Figure 3 shows the rut depth measurements for the two different tire pressures
levels. It shows that the rut depth increases nonlinearly as the loading pass
increases. The difference of rut depth under two pressure levels was around 0.1 in.
(2.54 mm) when the rutting depth is smaller than 1.0 in. (25.4 mm), while the
difference increased to 0.3 in. (76 mm) when the rutting depth reached 1.5 in.
(38 mm). This indicated that the effect of high tire pressure on rutting became more
noticeable when the rutting development progressed. It is believed that the total rut
Understanding Aireld Pavement Responses 545

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2 a Longitudinal and b transverse strains measured under APT

546 H. Wang et al.

Fig. 3 Rut depth under APT at different tire pressure

depth measured at the pavement surface is caused by the accumulation of perma-

nent deformation in the asphalt layer, and not in the P-209 aggregate base layer, or
subgrade due to thick asphalt layer and high temperature.

5 Finite Element Modeling

5.1 Finite Element Model

A 3-D FE model of flexible pavement was simulated using the general-purpose FE

software ABAQUS. In the model, eight-node, linear brick elements with reduced
integration were used in the nite domains, whereas innite elements were used at
boundaries to reduce a large number of far-eld elements without signicant loss of
accuracy and to create a silent boundary for the dynamic analysis. The innite
element has a special shape function for the geometry at the innite boundary and
thus has zero displacement as the coordinate approaches innity. In addition, the
innite elements introduce additional normal and shear tractions (viscous damping
boundary) on the FE boundary that are proportional to the normal and shear
components of the velocity of the boundary (ABAQUS 2010). This could minimize
the reflection of dilatational and shear wave energy back into the FE mesh and it
usually provides acceptable results for most practical cases.
Understanding Aireld Pavement Responses 547

Figure 4 illustrates the 3-D FE model that discretizes the pavement structure.
The FE mesh is rened around the loading area along the wheel path; a relatively
coarse mesh is used far away from the loading area. The element horizontal
dimensions along the aircraft wheel loading area were dictated by the tire rib and
groove geometries. Hence, the length of elements within the loading area was
selected at 0.81.2 in. (2030 mm) in the transverse direction and 1.6 in. (40 mm)
in the longitudinal (trafc) direction to have good aspect ratios. Based on the mesh
convergence analysis, the element thicknesses were selected to be 0.5 in. (12.5 mm)
for the asphalt surface layer and 1.22 in. (3050 mm) for the aggregate base layers
in order to have a smooth stress transition between elements. A sensitivity analysis
was performed to dene the innite boundaries at both sides, as well as the bottom
of FE mesh. After comparing the maximum tensile and shear strains in the asphalt
layer, the locations of the innite boundary in three directions from the load center
needed to be greater than 8.2 feet (2.5 m) in order to obtain the stable solutions (less
than 5 % changes). To achieve the balance between computation cost and accuracy,
the nal selected domain size (nite + innite) has an in-plane dimension of
20 30 feet (6 9 m) and a vertical dimension of 13 feet (4 m).
The aircraft tire loading was characterized with the non-uniformly distributed
contact stresses at the tire-pavement interface (Wang et al. 2013). The non-uniform
vertical contact stress distributions were based on the contact stress measurements
under heavy aircraft tire loading reported by Rolland (2009). In the longitudinal
direction, a half-sinusoidal distribution of vertical contact stress was used along the
contact length of each rib. The peak contact stresses beneath two edge ribs were
assumed equal to around 2.0 times the tire inflation pressure; while the peak contact
stresses under all other ribs were assumed equal to around 1.1 times the tire
inflation pressure. The aspect ratio (the ratio of contact width to length) of the tire
print was controlled depending on the load level. As the tire load increases, the

Fig. 4 Illustration of FE model and pavement structure

548 H. Wang et al.

contact length increases more signicantly than the contact width due to the rigidity
of tire sidewall. The aspect ratio was selected as 0.71 when the tire loading is 30
kips (133 kN) loading and 0.63 when the tire loading is 50 kips (222 kN).

5.2 Material Properties

The viscoelastic material properties of asphalt mixture were considered in the nite
element model. Figure 5 shows the measured dynamic modulus and the tted
master curve using the sigmoid function at a reference temperature of 68 F (20
C). As expected, under a constant loading frequency, the dynamic modulus
decreases as the temperature increases; while under a constant testing temperature,
the dynamic modulus increases as the frequency increases.
The relaxation modulus was inter-converted from the dynamic modulus using
Eqs. 1 and 2 assuming that the linear viscoelascity of HMA was represented by a
generalized Maxwell solid model (Park and Kim 1999). The relaxation modulus
and relaxation times were determined by minimizing the sum of squares of the
errors (Eq. 3). The bulk and shear relaxation moduli were calculated assuming a
constant Poissons ratio. The relationship between the shift factor and the tem-
perature can be approximated by the Williams-Landell-Ferry (WLF) function
(ABAQUS 2010).

Fig. 5 Master curve of dynamic modulus at 20 C

Understanding Aireld Pavement Responses 549

Xn
x2 s2i Ei
E 0 x E1 1
i1
1 x2 s2i

Xn
xsi Ei
E 00 x 2
i1
1 x2 s2i
" 2  00 2 #
Xk
E0 xcalcualted E xcalculated
min 1 1 3
j1
E0 xmeasured E 00 xmeasured

0
where E x is real part of the dynamic modulus; E00 x is imaginary part of the
dynamic modulus; E1 is equilibrium relaxation modulus at innite time; x is
angular frequency; Ei , and si are Prony series parameters for relaxation modulus; n
is number of Maxwell elements; and k is number of data points from the
measurements.
To investigate the effect of aggregate base nonlinearity on pavement responses,
both linear isotropic and cross-anisotropic nonlinear models were used to predict
pavement responses. For the linear isotropic analysis, the elastic modulus was set
equal to a typical value of 47,826 psi (330 MPa) for the P-209 base layer. In the
nonlinear cross-anisotropic model, the vertical modulus is described using the
generalized model adopted in the proposed Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide (MEPDG), Eq. 4 (ARA 2004). In this model, the rst stress invariant
or bulk stress term considers the hardening effect, while the octahedral shear stress
term considers the softening effect. The nonlinear coefcients (k1 = 2.800,
k2 = 1.184, and k3 = 1.597) were obtained from the literature where the
stress-dependent modulus of P-209 base material was measured at different mois-
ture contents (Nazarian et al. 2014). The stress dependency of Poissons ratios was
not considered in this study and the in-plane and out-of-plane Poissons ratios are
assumed constant. A user-material subroutine (UMAT) was developed for solving
nonlinear problems in ABAQUS (Wang and Al-Qadi 2013).
 k2  k3
h soct
Mrv k1 pa 1 4
pa pa
q
with h r1 r2 r3 and soct 13 r1  r2 2 r2  r3 2 r1  r3 2
where Mrv is vertical resilient modulus (kPa) (E3 in Eq. 2); Mrh is horizontal resilient
modulus (kPa) (E1 in Eq. 2); Gr is shear resilient modulus (kPa) (G13 in Eq. 2); h is
bulk stress (kPa); soct is octahedral shear stress (kPa); r1 , r2 , and r3 are maximum,
middle, and minimum principal stresses; k1 ; k2 ; k3 are exponent parameters; and pa
is atmospheric pressure (100 kPa).
For the cross-anisotropic modulus, the horizontal and shear modulus ratios (n
and m) were used, as shown in Eqs. 5 and 6. Previous research has found that
horizontal modulus ratios and shear modulus ratios had a relatively small range of
550 H. Wang et al.

variation (Tutumluer and Thompson 1997). The modulus ratios were assumed
constant as 0.35 for n and m in this study as typical values. The linear elastic
modulus of the subgrade in the thin asphalt pavement section was estimated from its
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value.

n Mrh =Mrv 5

m Gr =Mrv 6

5.3 Modeling Results

Table 1 summarizes the critical pavement responses caused by different tire pres-
sure levels, respectively, for tensile strains and shear strains in the asphalt layer. The
maximum tensile strains were found at the bottom of asphalt layer under tire center;
while the maximum shear strain was found at the shallow depth of asphalt layer at
the outmost tire rib. All critical pavement responses were calculated using the
nonlinear cross-anisotropic model for base layer and linear elastic modulus for
subgrade. The results show that as the tire pressure increases from 210 to 254 psi
(1.451.75 MPa), the changes of strain are smaller than 5 % in general. This means
that the effect of high tire pressure on fatigue cracking potential is not signicant for
the aireld pavement structure with a 10-in. asphalt layer. On the other hand, the
effect of tire load on strain responses was found much more signicant compared to
tire pressure effect. As the load increases, the increase of shear strain is more
signicant than the increase of tensile strain. This is probably because the tire load
increase mainly causes the concentration of tire contact stress at tire edge ribs due to
the rigidity of tire sidewalls.
Table 2 compares the strain responses calculated using different models for the
granular base layer under two loading levels (30 and 50 kips [133 and 222 kN])
with tire pressure of 210 psi (1.45 MPa). The results show that the cross-anisotropic
stress dependent model results in 2758 % greater tensile strains but only 24 %

Table 1 Comparison of pavement responses under different tire loads and pressure
Parameters Load = 30 kips Load = 50 kips
using different using different
tire pressure tire pressure
levels levels
Tire inflation pressure (psi) 210 254 210 254
Longitudinal tensile strain 764 785 910 944
at the bottom of asphalt layer (micro)
Transverse tensile strain 996 1032 1081 1123
at the bottom of asphalt layer (micro)
Maximum shear strain in asphalt 2176 2204 3746 3926
layer (micro)
Understanding Aireld Pavement Responses 551

Table 2 Comparison of pavement responses using different models for aggregate base layer
Pavement responses Load = 30 kips using Load = 50 kips using
different base models different based models
Linear Nonlinear Linear Nonlinear
isotropic cross-anisotropic isotropic cross-anisotropic
Longitudinal tensile strain 599 764 718 910
at the bottom of asphalt
layer (micro)
Transverse tensile strain at 661 996 690 1081
the bottom of asphalt layer
(micro)
Maximum shear strain in 2083 2176 3666 3746
asphalt layer (micro)

greater shear strains, compared to the results obtained using the traditional linear
isotropic model for granular base. It indicates that the stress-dependency and
cross-anisotropy of the aggregate base layer has more signicant effect on the
tensile strain than on the critical shear strain of asphalt layer. This may be attributed
to the fact that the bending behavior of asphalt layer is more sensitive to the
underlying layer support.
Figure 6 plots the strain-time history predicted form the FE model, respectively,
for longitudinal and transverse tensile strains. The strain development trend is
consistent with the measured strain pulses. This emphasizes the importance of
considering moving load pattern and viscoelastic asphalt layer in the FE model for

Fig. 6 Caculated tensile strains from FE model

552 H. Wang et al.

Fig. 7 Comparision of tensile strains from accelerated pavement testing and numerical modeling

predicting pavement responses. Figure 7 compares the calculated and measured

tensile strains in the asphalt layer under two loading levels (30 and 50 kips [133 and
222 kN]) with tire pressure of 210 psi (1.45 MPa) when the tire loading has
different offsets away from the strain gauge. In general, the modeling results agree
well with measurement results. The discrepancy could be caused by the reason that
the plastic behavior of asphalt concrete was not considered in the model, which will
be considered in the future work.

6 Conclusions

The following conclusions were concluded from the analysis:

1. The accelerated pavement testing results indicate that the number of passes
required for 1-in. surface rut (failure criterion) were similar for the two pressure
levels (210 and 254 psi [1.45 and 1.75 MPa]). This observation was obtained
from pavement testing conducted at the high temperature and it is consistent
with the previous ndings from high tire pressure tests.
2. Although the comparison of strain responses were not available from the
accelerated pavement testing, the numerical modeling results show as that the
critical pavement responses in the asphalt layer increased slightly as tire pressure
increased from 210 to 254 psi (1.45 to 1.75 MPa).
3. The cross-anisotropic non-linear behavior of granular base affects the tensile
strains at the bottom of asphalt layer signicantly. The comparison between
 Understanding Aireld Pavement Responses 553

predicted and measured strains emphasizes the importance of considering the

realistic tire-pavement interaction and the appropriate constitutive model for
each pavement layer.
The numerical modeling can support and supplement the full-scale testing results
and provide valuable suggestions for mechanistic-based aireld pavement design
under heavy aircrafts with high tire pressure. It is noted that this paper presented the
preliminary analysis results from the FE model that focused on the strain responses
in the asphalt layer. Ongoing work is being conducted to predict rutting depth at
different pressure levels using mechanistic-empirical pavement analysis framework.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Federal Aviation Administration for
providing funding for the research. The contents of the paper reflect the views of the authors, who
are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented within. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the ofcial views and policies of the FAA. The paper does not constitute a
standard, specication, or regulation.

References

ABAQUS. (2010). ABAQUS/standard users manual, Version 6.10. Pawtucket, RI: Hibbitt,
Karlsson & Sorenson, Inc.
Airbus. (2010). High tire pressure test. Technical Report.
ARA, Inc., ERES Division. (2004). Guide for mechanistic-empirical design of new and
rehabilitated pavement structures. Washington, DC: TRB. (NCHRP 1-37A Final Report)
FAA. (2010). Full-scale high tire pressure tests on heated pavement. Final Report, Submitted to
ICAO Aerodrome Operations and Services Working Group.
ICAO. (1983). Aerodrome design manual, part 3, pavements (2nd ed.). Document 9157-AN/901,
International Civil Aviation Organization.
Kim, I. T., & Tutumluer, E. (2004). Predicting rutting performance of pavement granular layers at
the FAAs National Airport Pavement Test Facility. In Proceeding of 2004 FAA worldwide
airport technology transfer conference.
Nazarian, S., et al. (2014). Modulus-based construction specication for compaction of earthwork
and unbound aggregate: appendices. Transportation Research Board. (NCHRP 10-84)
Park, S. W., & Kim, Y. R. (1999). Interconversion between relaxation modulus and creep
compliance for viscoelastic solids. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 11(1), 7682.
Rolland, E. (2009). Tire pressure test effect on pavement. Airbus high tire pressure workshop (in
CD). Toulouse, France.
Wang, H., & Al-Qadi, I. L. (2013). Importance of nonlinear anisotropic modeling of granular base
for predicting maximum viscoelastic pavement responses under moving vehicular loading.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 139(1), 2938.
Wang, H., Portas, S., Coni, M., & Al-Qadi, I. L. (2013). Three-dimensional nite element
modeling of instrumented airport runway pavement responses. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2367, TRB, National Research
Council, pp. 7683.

View publication stats