Lecture 2 - Stresses in Pavements
Lecture 2 - Stresses in Pavements
Lecture 2 - Stresses in Pavements
Stresses in Pavements
Stresses in Layered Systems
Burmister Theory
Two-layered system developed in 1940’s.
q
Stresses and Strains in Flexible Pavements
Function of the following:
Materialproperties of each layer
Thickness of each layer
Loading conditions
Environmental impact
s0 is the average pressure acting on the rigid plate (such as concrete slab).
P
s0
a2
Deflection under the Rigid Plate
Reminder: Deflections are equal under a rigid plate.
s0 is the average pressure acting on the rigid plate (such as concrete slab).
P
s0
a2
Comparison of Deflections at the Surface
Rigid vs. Flexible Plate
The deflection under a rigid plate is 79% of that under a flexible plate.
One Layer Systems
Foster and Ahlvin (1954) developed charts for computing vertical, tangential and
radial stresses. The charts were developed for μ = 0.5.
This work was subsequently refined by Ahlvin and Ulery (1962) allowing for
evaluation of stresses and strains at any point in the homogenous mass for any μ.
Due to symmetry, there are only three normal stresses, sz, sr and st and one
shear stress trz.
The deflection that occurs within the pavement layers (Dp) is neglected and
therefore, the pavement surface deflection (DT) is equal to the deflection on the
top of subgrade (Ds):
DT = Dp + Ds , Dp = 0, therefore DT = Ds
Charts for One Layer Solutions
(after Foster and Ahlvin, 1954)
Charts for One Layer Solutions
(after Foster and Ahlvin, 1954)
Charts for One Layer Solutions
(after Foster and Ahlvin, 1954)
Charts for One Layer Solutions
(after Foster and Ahlvin, 1954)
Tables for One-layer Solutions by Ahlvin and Ulery (1962)
Burmister’s Theory of Two-Layer Systems
As we discussed in the first lecture, one of the primary functions of the
pavements is to protect the subgrade.
Burmister (1958) obtained solutions for two-layer problem by using
strain continuity equations.
Based on Burmister’s solutions, vertical stresses are greatly influenced by
the modular ratio (i.e., E1/E2).
Vertical stress decreases considerably with increase in modular ratio. For
example, based on the plot provided in the next slide:
for z/a=1 and E1/E2 = 1, sz at interface = 68% of contact pressure.
for z/a=1 and E1/E2 = 100, sz at interface = 8% of contact pressure.
Burmister’s Solutions
for Vertical Stresses
0.08 0.68
Burmister Solutions for Deflections
Burmister extended the one-layer solutions to two and three layers in 1958.
He assumed layers have full frictional contact at the interface and n=0.5.
Equations and graphs are typically used to calculate the responses under
the load.
The deflection under flexible plate (w0) for two layer system can be
calculated from the following equation:
1.5 P a
0 F2
E2
P: Load distributed over a circular plate
a: Radius of flexible plate
E1: Modulus of elasticity for the surface layer
E2: Modulus of elasticity of the subgrade
F2: Deflection coefficient
Burmister’s Solutions for
Surface Deformations
The deflection coefficient (F2) can be estimated from the following graph:
Burmister’s Solutions for
Vertical Interface Stresses for Two Layer Systems
Three Layer Systems
Fox and Acum developed closed form
solutions for boundary stresses in the
center of a circular uniformly loaded area.
They assumed Passion's ratio of 0.5 for all
layers.
Later Jones and Peattie (1962) expanded
the equations for three layer systems, they
developed graphical solutions of
responses based on the following
parameters:
K1 = E1/E2
K2 = E2/E3 Schematic plot showing the locations
A = a/h2 of the pavement response solutions.
H = h1/h2
Influence of Layer Thickness on
Vertical Stress Distributions (σz)
K1 = E1/E2=20
K2 = E2/E3=20
A = a/h2
H = h1/h2
Influence of Modular Ratio K1 on
Vertical Stress Distributions (σz)
K1 = E1/E2
Vertical stress at the bottom of
surface layer decreases as top
K1 = E1/E2 layer stiffness increases
K2 = E2/E3=10
A = a/h2=1
H = h1/h2=1/4 Vertical stress at the top of subgrade
decreases slightly as asphalt layer
stiffness increases
Influence of Modular Ratio K2 on
Vertical Stress Distributions (σz)
K1 = E1/E2=20
K2 = E2/E3
A = a/h2=1
H = h1/h2=1/4
Typical Distribution of the Shear Stresses
in Multi-Layer Systems
Influence of (E1/E2)
Ei (1 m ) 2
hei hi 3 i 1
Ei 1 (1 m ) i
2
Typical Input
Material properties: modulus (E) and Poisson's Ratio (n).
Layer thicknesses.
Loading conditions: magnitude of axle load, gear configurations, contact
radius (tire footprint), or contact pressure.
Slip between layers (fully bonded or partially bonded layers).
Limitations of Layered Elastic Models (LEM)
Effects
of wheel loads applied close to cracks or edges (or joints in
rigid pavements) require asymmetry - not available in LEM.
Information on slip generally not available – influence can be
dramatic – ( BISAR program accommodates for the slip and inter-
layer shear).
Geostatic stresses are neglected.
Vertical
and lateral variation in dynamic or resilient modulus
cannot be accounted for in LEM (Anisotropy).
Stresses
and strains calculated in unbound materials can be
unreasonable – such as unrealistically high tensile stresses at the
bottom of UAB due to stress sensitivity and anisotropy of the
materials. (more discussion on this will be presented in the lecture
on the characterization of unbound granular materials).
Limitations of Layered Elastic Models (LEM), Cont.
Layeredelastic method doesn’t account for dynamic nature
of the wheel load.
LEM represent tire-pavement contact as uniformly loaded,
circular area while research demonstrates that actual contact
area shape varies with loading and tire specifications.
Determination of the Tire Footprint
Vertical Stress Distribution under
Dual Wheel Load
Super Position of Wheel Loads
Example Pavement (6” Base)
Example Pavement (10” Base)
Example Pavement (14” Base)
Vertical Stress Distributions
Vertical Stress, psi
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
8
Depth, in
18
20
22
Shear Stress in the YZ-plane
8
Depth, in
10
Soft Subgrade (4 ksi)
12
14
Stiff Subgrade (12 ksi)
16
18
20
22