4.6 Article

Early-Age Fatigue Damage Assessment of Cement-Treated Bases under Repetitive Heavy Traffic Loading

期刊

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002250

关键词

Cement-treated pavement materials; Prematurely opened highways; Early-age fatigue damage; Flexural fatigue behavior; Endurance limit; Heavy traffic loading

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [LP130100884]
  2. IPC Global
  3. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (QDTMR)
  4. Golder Associates
  5. Hong Kong Road Research Laboratory (HKRRL)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper aims to develop measures to minimize the early-age fatigue damage of prematurely opened cement-treated bases (CTBs) due to repetitive heavy traffic loading. The four-point bending test was used in this study to characterize the early-age fatigue performance as well as the flexural properties of two different locally sourced granular materials stabilized with 3% general purpose (GP) cement. All the flexural tests were executed under stress-controlled mode. The fatigue test results evinced the existence of an endurance limit in cemented granular materials (CGMs) even at 7days curing age. A stress-based fatigue performance model was developed for predicting the early-age fatigue performance of CGMs in service. In addition, the 7-day fatigue test data from this study were validated using existing CGM fatigue models. The numerical results obtained from the CIRCLY program indicated that the level of interaction between the axles of an axle configuration decreases with decreasing CTB layer thickness, resulting in increased pavement fatigue damage. It was also found that the asphalt cover over CTB required to prevent the occurrence of initial fatigue damage to the CTB decreases with increasing CTB modulus, subgrade strength, and CTB layer thickness. The limitations and simplifications in current pavement design and testing methods are also critically discussed and addressed on the basis of the results of this study.

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

4.6
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