4.7 Article

Modeling to simulate inverted asphalt pavement testing: An emphasis on cracks in the semirigid subbase

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 306, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124790

关键词

Inverted asphalt pavement; Finite element modeling; Semirigid subbase cracking; Accelerated pavement testing; Pavement testing simulation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51608043, 52108393]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quarter IAP FE models with cracks in the subbase were developed to include the effect of cracks on pavement responses. Validation through simulation showed that the FE model can replicate actual pavement responses well and is suitable for pavement testing simulation of IAP with cracks in the subbase.
Typical inverted asphalt pavement (IAP) finite element (FE) models consider the semirigid subbase as an intact slab. Quarter IAP FE models with cracks in the subbase are developed to include the effect of cracks on pavement responses. To facilitate the model validation, heavy vehicle simulator (HVS) accelerated pavement testing (APT) and falling weight deflectometer (FWD) tests are conducted on four instrumented IAP test sections with transverse cracks sawed into the top of the subbase. The crack is simulated with cohesive elements, and the loading part geometry and dimension are determined by measuring the tire-pavement contact characteristics of the HVS dual-wheel carriage. The minimum mesh size of 0.01 m is specified in the convergence analysis. Dimension validity analysis results illustrate that the quarter model cannot represent the overlapping effect of the dualwheel loads along the depth direction. FWD tests simulation and P-value results of paired T-tests between the simulated and measured pavement responses indicate that the FE model developed in the study can replicate the actual pavement response well. The model is valid for the pavement testing simulation of IAP with cracks in the subbase.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据