HIPAVE Workshop 3 Slides Per Page
HIPAVE Workshop 3 Slides Per Page
HIPAVE Workshop 3 Slides Per Page
May 2009
Leigh Wardle
rev. May 2009
Seminar Outline
History of Port Pavement Design Methods
British Ports Association (1986, 1996)
CIRCLY/APSDS (Mincad Systems, 1990+)
ASCE Port and Intermodal Yard Pavement Design Guide (Draft)
HIPAVE (2005+)
Heavy Duty Industrial Pavement Design Guide
Overview of HIPAVE capabilities
Automation of Vehicle Loads
Automation of Payload Distributions
Parametric and Economic Analysis
Lateral Vehicle Wander
Dynamic Load Factors
Heavy Duty Industrial Pavement Design Guide
Overview
Modelling For Heavy Loads
Asphalt Characterization
Case Studies
Crawford Street intermodal container terminal
(Hamilton, New Zealand).
Workshop Outline
Review of Mechanistic Pavement Design Theory
Layered Elastic Model
Loading
Critical Strains
Performance Criteria – Fatigue and Rutting
Cumulative Damage Factor
Unbound Granular Materials - Sublayering
Heavy Duty Industrial Pavement Design Guide
Introduction to HIPAVE User Interface
Demonstration of job assembly from existing
components
How to modify HIPAVE databases
Workshop exercises
Review workshop exercises
Further Research
Page 1
History of Port Pavement Design Methods
Development of Mechanistic
Pavement Analysis
Power, HIPAVE 2005++
Sophistication
•Integrated
CIRCLY/APSDS
•Multi-Layer
1995++ •Automatic vehicle loads
•Integrated
•Multi-Layer •Payload distributions
BPA Guide 1988 •Rigorous Wander
•Actual vehicle layouts
•Multi-Layer •mostly automatic
•Pass/Coverage
FAA Guide 1978 •Load equivalency
(ESA’s, PAWL’s)
Single Layer •High manual effort
+ matl. equivalency
Pass/Coverage
Load equivalency
(ESA’s, PAWL’s) Year
Page 2
Pavement Design Methods for
Ports And Container Terminals
HIPAVE
Development of APSDS/HIPAVE
wander model
1987:
Concept paper by
Professor Carl Monismith
1993:
Initial prototype developed by
Ian Rickards, Pioneer Road Services
Based on CIRCLY Layered Elastic Analysis program (Wardle,
1977)
1995:
APSDS commercial release
2005:
HIPAVE commercial release
Page 3
Overview of HIPAVE capabilities
Asphalt 1
Granular
Material
Cemented
2
Material
Subgrade 3 3
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2.5 4 6 8.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5
Payload (tonnes)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Page 4
Cumulative Damage Factor
(single load case)
n
CDF =
N
n is the number of repetitions of the load
N is the ‘allowable’ repetitions of the response
parameter that would cause failure
If CDF = 1.0
Page 5
Cumulative Damage Factor
HIPAVE:
Sample Damage Factor vs. Container Mass
Page 6
HIPAVE:
Sample Damage Factor vs. Distance
Straddle Carriers
Page 7
Standard Vehicle Library –
automatically updated from webserver
vehicle
Specs
.
XML
Internet
Mincad
webserver
Fork Lift:
Page 8
HIPAVE: Axle Load vs. Container Mass
Straddle Carrier
Straddle Carrier
Page 9
HIPAVE: Custom Payload Distribution
8000
7000
6000
5000
Count
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2.5 4 6 8.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5
Payload (tonnes)
Cumulative Proportion
Page 10
Site-specific Container Mass distribution
(1988)
(2000)
Vehicle Wander
0.0005
0.0004
Taxiway
Frequency
0.0002
Runway
(SD = 1600 mm)
0.0001
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
X (mm) Centreline
Page 11
Lateral Wander
4500
Xwdel (=100 mm)
4000
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
80
60
40
20
00
80
60
40
20
00
20
40
60
80
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
Sub-base thickness
Wander: Runway Taxiway Docking bay
(SD = 1600 mm) (SD = 800 mm) (SD = 200 mm)
Page 12
Case study
Container
Max. Weight:
41 tonnes
Page 13
Crawford Street intermodal container terminal
Front tyres
Page 14
Results - HIPAVE Analysis
Front axle
Front tyres
Rear axle
Front axle
Page 15
Advanced HIPAVE 5.0 features
Cost Calculation
+
Automatic Parametric Analysis
=
A new powerful tool for pavement cost
optimization
Cost Calculation
Total Cost
Cost Calculation
Page 16
Automatic Parametric Analysis
T2 = ? Base $60 / m3
T3 = ? Sub-base $20 / m3
Subgrade, CBR = 6
Page 17
Cost Optimization Case Study
Summary of Results
Minimum Cost
Cost Optimization:
How it works….
Analysed to resolution of 10 mm
Page 18
Heavy Duty Industrial
Pavement Design Guide
Collaborative effort:
Leigh Wardle - Mincad Systems
Ian Rickards - Pioneer Road Services
Pty Ltd (Melbourne, Australia)
John Lancaster – VicRoads
(Melbourne, Australia)
Dr. Susan Tighe
(Dept. Civil Engineering, University of
Waterloo, Canada).
Page 19
Review of Pavement Design
using Mechanistic Analysis
DESIGN
TRAFFIC
SUBGRADE
EVALUATION
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
PAVEMENT
MATERIALS
Asphalt 1
Granular
Material
Cemented
2
Material
Subgrade 3 3
Page 20
Alternative damage indicators
Asphalt
Base Course/
Subbase Course
Vertical strain at
top of subgrade Subgrade
CBR = 15
Asphalt
Tensile strain at
base of asphalt Unbound granular material
Asphalt 1
Granular
Material
Cemented
2
Material
Subgrade 3 3
Page 21
Performance/Damage Models
F k IK b
N =
H ε
repetitions to failure critical strain
Damage Factor
ni
CDF =
∑N
i
Page 22
TO DO
Design Traffic:
n repetitions
Layered
System
Asphalt
,ε
critical strain
Base Course/
Subbase Course
Subgrade
Allowable
repetitions to failure
Performance N = F εk Ib
Relationship:
H K
Damage (CDF) = n
N
Page 23
Key Design Model Reality Issues?
Page 24
Pavement Layer Modelling For
Heavy Loads
Calibration of Model
1400
APSDS Pavement Thickness (mm)
B757
1300
B747
1200
B737
1100 B717
1000 BAe146
900 A300
A320
800
A340
700
B767
600 (subgrade CBR = 6) MD11
500 S i 1
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
S77-1 Method Pavement Thickness (mm) Wardle et al (2001)
Page 25
Subgrade
Rutting criteria developed from aircraft test pavements:
Subgrade
Dependence of performance
exponent (b) on subgrade modulus
26
24
22
b
⎡k ⎤
20 N =⎢ ⎥
18 ⎣ε ⎦
16
b
14
12
10
3 2
8 b = -2.12E-07 E + 0.000838 E - 0.0274 E + 9.57
4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
E (MPa)
Wardle et al (2001)
Page 26
Subgrade
Rutting criteria developed from aircraft test pavements
Subgrade 0.010000
Compressive
Strain (ε) Roads criterion (e.g. Austroads)
overestimates life
CURRENT by factor of 100 or more!
AUSTROAD
S
Esg 150
Esg 70
Esg 40
Esg 20
0.000100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07
Tolerable Repetitions Of Strain
Page 27
Pavement Layer Modelling for
Heavy Loads
Barker-Brabston Sub-Layering
(developed by Barker-Brabston,1975)
as used by FAA and US Defence Design Methods
Barker-Brabston Sub-Layering
Barker-Brabston Sub-Layering:
Example
95 mm Asphalt
102 mm ? Base Course
304 mm ? Subbase
Course
68.9 Subgrade
Page 28
Barker-Brabston Sub-Layering:
Example
95 mm Asphalt
102 mm 305 Base Course
152 mm 172
Subbase
Sub-layers
Course
152 mm 119
68.9 Subgrade
Asphalt Modelling
Speed of Loading
Temperature
Shell Equation
Page 29
Cement Treated Modelling
k depends on
modulus etc.
F k I 12.0
N = RF
H εK
repetitions to failure horizontal tensile strain at
underside of layer
(Austroads 2004)
12
⎡113 000 0.804 + 191⎤
N = ⎢ E ⎥
⎢ µε ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Austroads 2004
Page 30
Shell Asphalt Model
N =⎢ ⎥
⎣ mix µε
S0.36 ⎦
where µε = maximum tensile strain (in units of microstrain),
Smix = asphalt mix stiffness (MPa)
VB = volume of binder in asphalt mix (%)
Austroads 2004
k depends on
stiffness etc.
F k I 5.0
N =
H εK (Shell 19xx)
Page 31
Rigid Concrete Modelling
Boeing 747
Page 32
Boeing 747
Conventional design systems
only consider one gear
Boeing 747
Model can include ALL gears
0.50
0.40 Single gear
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Dista nce from Ce ntre line
Page 33
Conventional model (Isotropic)
Effect of gear interaction- isotropic
Rear gear (4 gears included) Single ge ar
1.00
0.90
0.80 Front ge ar (4 gears included)
0.70
0.60
Damage
Damage Model:
vertical subgrade strain, isotropic layers
pavement thickness = 1710 mm
3
Rear gear (4 gears included)
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Distance from Centreline
Page 34
Simplicity
Modelled as
Component 2
Page 35
Introduction to HIPAVE User Interface
HIPAVE
Load Types
Units
Q u an tity
L en g th , D isp lacem en t mm
M o d u lu s, P ressu re MPa
S train m /m
F o rce N
M o m en t N .m m
Page 36
Global Coordinate System
Direction of Travel
Centreline of Vehicle
Wheels on axle
Y
O
0 X
Page 37
Results along line
Y
Direction of Travel
X
0
Results points
Results on grid
Ymax Y
Ydel
Ymin
X
0
Page 38
HIPAVE:
Sample Damage Factor vs. Container Mass
HIPAVE:
Sample Damage Factor vs. Distance
Page 39
Three-dimensional plots:
strain pulse under dual wheels
Vertical strain
Three-dimensional plots:
strain pulse under dual wheels
Vertical strain
HIPAVE Toolbar
Options
Materials
Layered System
Load Groups
Traffic
Job Title
Page 40
To start a new job
To save a job
Page 41
To view/edit Job Title
Job
Coordinates for
Traffic Spectrum Layered System
Results
Page 42
The Traffic Spectrum and Layered
System link to
Job
Coordinates for
Traffic Spectrum Layered System
Results
Page 43
Vehicle Model Total Movements
Page 44
HIPAVE: Custom Payload Distribution
8000
7000
6000
5000
Count
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2.5 4 6 8.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5
Payload (tonnes)
Page 45
When all data has been defined, you run the
analysis by clicking on
Page 46
How to use
Graphics
Options
Front tyres
Page 47
Choose Layer here
Page 48
Export menu:
Can export to Graphics and Text
(Metafile is best for grapics, e.g. Powerpoint,
MS Word)
Exercise 1
Exercise 1:
job assembly from existing components
Job Name: Exercise 1
Job Title: This is Exercise 1
Run Analysis
Page 49
Exercise 1 - Answers
How to input
Traffic
Spectrums
Page 50
Sample Traffic Mix
Vehicle Model A Vehicle Model A – Payload Distribution
8000
7000
6000
5000
Count
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2.5 4 6 8.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5
Payload (tonnes)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Page 51
Maximum 20 characters
Maximum 72 characters
Page 52
Enter Total Movements for this Model
Page 53
Click Distribution Type. Choose Standard
Page 54
Example Standard Payload
Distribution
Page 55
Example Custom Payload Distribution
Payload (tonnes) Count
2.5 1000
4.0 200
6.0 300
8.5 200
12.5 100
17.5 1200
22.5 7500
27.5 1000
Page 56
Standard Payload Distributions
Page 57
Dynamic Load Factors
Straddle Carrier
Load Factors
for each axle: 1.5 X
1.2 X
0.8 X
0.5 X
Front
Page 58
3 Wander Options:
3 Wander Options:
No Wander
Wander
Same for all vehicles
Different for each vehicle model
Lateral Wander
4500
Xwdel (=100 mm)
4000
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
80
60
40
20
00
80
60
40
20
00
20
40
60
80
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
00
Distance to “Tail”
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
80
60
40
20
00
80
60
40
20
00
20
40
60
80
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
Page 59
Different Wander for
each Vehicle Model
Exercise 2
Page 60
Exercise 2:
Exercise 2:
Job Name: Exercise 2
Job Title: This is Exercise 2
Step 1.
Page 61
Exercise 2 - Layered System
(this is already in database – called “Example 1”)
Step 2.
Page 62
Exercise 2 - Loading
Exercise 2 - Loading
Exercise 2 - Loading
Note: Heaviest container weight in range assumed for all containers in range.
Page 63
Exercise 2 - Loading
Step 3.
Step 4.
Page 64
Coordinates for results:
Step 5
Page 65
Step 6.
Step 7.
Step 8.
Page 66
Step 9.
Make sure Asphalt is selected Make sure CDF vs. Payload is selected
Step 10.
Make sure Subgrade is selected Make sure CDF vs. Payload is selected
Exercise 3
Page 67
Exercise 3
Step 1.
Open the sample job "Example for Cost Optimization".
Run Analysis – check results against next slide
Exercise 3:
Initial Results:
Page 68
Exercise 3a:
Manual Design Iteration
Exercise 3a:
Manual Design Iteration
Your goal is to determine the thickness of Layer No. 2 (Base) to
nearest 20 mm so that the Asphalt CDF and Subgrade CDF are just
less than 1.0
You will try a number of different Layer No. 2 thicknesses
(each one is to be a multiple of 20 mm)
Add an entry to this table for each configuration that you analyse:
Exercise 3a:
Manual Design iteration (cont.)
Correct answers:
??
Page 69
Exercise 3b:
Automatic Thickness Design
1. Change
Thickness
to 800 mm
1. Tick box
3. Click to re-analyse
Page 70
Exercise 3b - How to use Automatic Thickness Design
Exercise 3c:
Cost Optimization
100 mm
100 mm
Page 71
Step 1.
a. Un-check Design
Thickness….
b. Make sure Calculate Cost
is ticked.
d. Click to re-analyse
Step 2.
a. Tick box
Step 3.
Page 72
Step 4.
Click to re-analyse
Graph: Total Cost vs. Thickness of Layer No. 3 (the independent variable)
Page 73
Cost Optimization –
Choice of Resolution
20 700 57.35
10 700 57.35
Graph: Thickness of Design Layer (No. 2) vs. Thickness of Layer No. 3 (the independent variable)
Graph: CDF (asphalt layer) vs. Thickness of Layer No. 3 (the independent variable)
Page 74
Graph: CDF (subgrade) vs. Thickness of Layer No. 3 (the independent variable)
Design dictated by
Subgrade CDF
Preview of
Load Group
Data
Page 75
Choose Vehicle Type Choose Manufacturer
Y
Front axle 0 X
Rear axle
Page 76
Equal Axle Loads – e.g. Straddle Carrier
Basic Characteristics
- specified in terms of 4 simple parameters
Wheel Locations
How to create a
Layered System
Page 77
Maximum 20 characters
Maximum 72 characters
Table of Layers is now empty – we now start adding layers from the top
Page 78
Layer No. 1 = Asphalt
2. 3.
1.
Page 79
Layer No. 2 = Base Course
3.
2.
1.
3.
2.
1.
Page 80
Layer No. 3 = Sub-Base Course
3.
2.
1.
Page 81
Layer No. 4 = Subgrade
Preview of
Material
Property Data
Page 82
Material Type
FkI 5.0
N = RF
H εK horizontal tensile strain
repetitions to failure at underside of layer
Page 83
Components of databases
Job
Coordinates for
Traffic Spectrum Layered System
Results
Relationships in Layers/Materials
Database
Performance Material 1
Relationship 1 (e.g. Asphalt)
Material 2 Layered
(e.g. Granular) System
Performance Material 3
Relationship 3 (e.g. Subgrade)
Page 84
Material Type
Page 85
Enter Performance ID (<=20 chars.)
Enter Title (<=72 chars.)
Page 86
Click to add new material
Page 87
Enter Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio.
Conclusions
Conclusions - HIPAVE
Page 88
Downloads
URL = mincad.com.au/zdm
Includes:
Latest versions of HIPAVE, CIRCLY, APSDS
Heavy Duty Industrial Pavement Design Guide
Workshop Slides
Sample Client Pavement Design Document
References - 1
Austroads (2004). Pavement Design- A Guide to the Structural Design of Road
Pavements. Austroads Publication No. AP-G17/04.
Barker, W. and Brabston, W. (1975). Development of a structural design procedure for
flexible airport pavements. Report No. S-75-17. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
British Ports Association (1986). The Structural Design of Heavy Duty Pavements for
Ports and other Industries, 2nd ed., British Ports Federation, London.
British Ports Association/Interpave (1996). The Structural Design of Heavy Duty
Pavements for Ports and other Industries, 3rd ed., Interpave, Leicester.
Smallridge, M. and Jacob, A. (2001). The ASCE Port and Intermodal Yard Pavement
Design Guide. Ports 2001 Conference: America’s Ports - Gateway to the Global
Economy. April 29–May 2, 2001, Norfolk, Virginia, USA (Collins, T. J. – ed.).
Mincad Systems and Pioneer Road Services (2006). Heavy Duty Industrial Pavement
Design Guide, http://www.mincad.com.au/hdipdg/
Mincad Systems (2006). HIPAVE. http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE.htm
Pereira, A. T. (1977). Procedures for development of CBR design curves. Instruction
Report S-77-1, US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
References - 2
Wardle, L. J. and Oldfield, D. (2005). HIPAVE – A Mechanistic Design Tool for Flexible
Port Pavements. Proc. 2005 Coasts and Ports Australasian Conference, Adelaide,
South Australia 21-23 September 2005.
http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm
Wardle, L. J., Rickards, I. and Hudson, K. (2005). HIPAVE – A Mechanistic Design Tool
for Heavy-Duty Industrial Pavements. Proc. AAPA Pavements Industry Conf., Surfers
Paradise, Australia.
http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm
Wardle, L.J. and Rodway, B. (1995). Development and Application of an Improved
Airport Pavement Design Method. ASCE Transportation Congress, San Diego, 22-26
October, 1995. http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm
Wardle, L.J., Rodway, B. and Rickards, I. (2001). Calibration of Advanced Flexible
Aircraft Pavement Design Method to S77-1 Method. in Advancing Airfield Pavements,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2001 Airfield Pavement Specialty Conference,
Chicago, Illinois, 5-8 August 2001 (Buttlar, W.G. and Naughton, J.E, eds.), pp. 192-201.
http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm
Wardle, L.J., Youdale, G. and Rodway, B. (2003). Current Issues For Mechanistic
Pavement Design. in 21st ARRB and 11th REAAA Conference, Cairns, Australia, 18 -
23 May, 2003, Session S32, ARRB Transport Research.
http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm
Wardle , L., Rickards, I. and Lancaster, J. (2006). HIPAVE - A Tool To Assist In The
Mechanistic Empirical Design Of Heavy Duty Industrial Flexible Pavements. 10th
International Conference on Asphalt Pavements (ISAP), Quebec, Canada, August. 12-
17. http://www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm
Page 89
Pavement Design Workshop
The End
Page 90