Aagaard Pedersen, L.

Dias, Kealey

Gravesen, Jens

Hjorth, Poul G.

Larsen, P.

Please, C.

Radulovic, N.

Wang, L.

This is the report from the 54th European Study Group wiht Industry of the Greenwood Engineering problem. We model pavement response to both a point and distributed loads and compare with data from Greenwood's High Speed Deflectograph Measurements

Online Research Database In Technology

                       General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.  • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal   If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.     Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Dec 16, 2017Beneath the Wheel - Greenwood EngineeringDias, Kealey; Gravesen, Jens; Hjorth, Poul G.; Larsen, P.; Please, C.; Radulovic, N.; Wang, L.; AagaardPedersen, L.Publication date:2005Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordLink back to DTU OrbitCitation (APA):Dias, K., Gravesen, J., Hjorth, P. G., Larsen, P., Please, C., Radulovic, N., ... Aagaard Pedersen, L. (2005).Beneath the Wheel - Greenwood Engineering. University of Southern Denmark.Beneath the Wheel: Greenwood EngineeringK. Dias∗, J. Gravesen†, P.G. Hjorth‡, P. Larsen§,C.Please¶, N. Radulovic‖, L. Wang∗∗Greenwood representative: L. Aagaard PedersenFigure 1: The Greenwood Working Group∗MAT, Technical University of Denmark, s041767@student.dtu.dk†MAT, Technical University of Denmark, J.Gravesen@mat.dtu.dk‡MAT, Technical University of Denmark, P.G.Hjorth@mat.dtu.dk§MAT, Technical University of Denmark, nesralretep@gmail.com¶School of Mathematics, University of Southampton, cpp@maths.soton.ac.uk‖MCI, University of Southeren Denmark, radulle@mci.sdu.dk∗∗MCI, University of Southeren Denmark, wanglinxiang@mci.sdu.dk11 Introduction – The Bearing Capacity of RoadsIn the maintainance of roads it is of great importance to know the surfaceproperties, such as, roughness, rutting, friction and surface damage, and inparticular the so called bearing capacity [1] of the road. The quantity can beestimated from data describing the deflection created by a heavy load. Seethe basic geometry in figure 2.Figure 2: The basic geometry of the problem.Until now, most bearing capacity measurements have been performed bystationary or very slow moving measuring equipment. This can disturb thetraffic flow and result in dangerous situations. An example of such equipmentFigure 3: Traditional ‘falling weight’ deflectometer equipment.is a so called Falling Weight Deflectometer (figure 3), which applies a force tothe road corresponding to the force of a heavy loaded truck and then measuresthe pavement surface deflection. Based on these measurements and back2calculation (see below), the deflection basin, the maximal deflection, and theStructural Curvature Index can be found with this equipment.Figure 4: The High Speed Deflectograph (HSD) is able to perform measurementsof road deflection from a vehicle travelling at normal traffic speeds.Greenwood Engineering has developed and patented a new device whichmeasures deflection of roads at high speed - the High Speed Deflectograph(HSD) (figure 4). The HSD operating continuously and moving at normaltraffic speeds measures the deflection velocities. From these measurementsthe Structural Curvature Index can be calculated.1.1 DefinitionsA well known road quantity among road engineers is the Structural CurvatureIndex (SCI300). It is defined as the differenceSCI300 = d0 − d300,where d0 is the deflection below the center of the wheel and d300 is thedeflection 300 mm in front of the wheel, see figure 4 and 5. From SCI300 onecan obtain the Asphalt Strain (AS) of the road, which can be converted intoa measure for the remaining life of the road.Greenwood Engineering is currently able to obtain SCI300 and AS,allthough they take SCI300 = d300, assuming that the integration constant iszero.31.2 Problem descriptionESGI54 is asked to model the deflection caused by a wheel. The shape andsize of the deflection depends on the elasticity of the pavement constructionlayers. A typical deflection bowl can be seen on the figure 5 (below thehorizontal axis).Figure 5: Curves of the absolute deflection and the deflection velocity as a functionof the position in front of the wheel to the left. A curve of the slope as a functionof the position in front of the wheel is just a scaling of the deflection velocity curve.Currently, the Greenwood Engineering HSD employs 3 sensors (not 6 assuggested in figure 5) positioned at 100 mm, 200 mm and 300 mm in front ofthe wheel. The HSD measures the deflection velocities (vd), by using dopplersensors. Using the relationvd = vdrβ (1)we compensate for the driving speed (vdr) and obtain the slope β (mm/m).The current treatment of the measurements is the following. Based on theslope, and the assumption that the deflection velocity is zero at (0,0), a curveis fitted. This curve is then integrated to obtain the relative deflection bowl.As sensors are positioned relativly close to the wheel, our obtained curve fitscover the range from 0 mm to 300 mm. It is expected that the curve shouldlook approximately as the curve above the horizontal axis in figure 5.41.3 BISARIn the late 1960s, Shell Research developed the BISTRO (BItumen STructurein ROads) program, which calculates stresses, strains, and displacements atany position in a multi-layer system, where the number of layers is arbitrary(though typically no more than three), and the system is subjected to one ormore circular normal loads. After further extensions the BISTRO programwas renamed BISAR (BItumen Stress Analysis in Roads). Originally onlysuitable for mainframe computers, the BISAR program was in 1987 adaptedfor use on personal computers.210 mm 105 mm 210 mm h 2h 1∞Dual load of 80 kN standard axleAsphaltBase LayerSubgradeE νE νE ν1 12 23 3Figure 6: The model underlying the BISAR program is a multi-layer pavementmodel. Each layer is assigned a Youngs Modulus E and a Poission ration ν.With the BISAR program, stresses, strains and displacements can be cal-culated in an elastic multi-layer system which is defined by the followingconfigurations and material behaviour:1. The pavement consists of horizontal layers of uniform composition, rest-ing on a final semi-infinite half-space.2. The layers are unbounded in the horizontal direction.53. The materials are homogeneous and isotropic.4. The materials are elastic with a linear stress-strain relationship.Assumption 3 and 4 reduce the stress-strain relation to Hooke’s Law. As-sumptions 1 and 2 simplify the boundary value problem.The BISAR program provides a good numerical model for most types ofpavements, and can be used as a check of the analytical model.1.4 The QuestionsBased on our measurements ((p1, vd1), (p2, vd2), (p3, vd3), acceleration (x, y, z),data from the gyro, driving speed, temperature, etc.), known mechanicalpavement models, and descriptive mathematical modelling, we would liketo:A. obtain a continuous function describing the deflection slope Vslope(x) asa function of the positive position from the center of the wheel.• Which type of curve fitting?, Polynomial, B-Spline ?• Perhaps Boussinesq for distances > 300mmB. obtain a continuous function describing the absolute deflection Dbowl(x)as a function of the positive position from the center of the wheel.• The deflection Dbowl(0) = the maximal deflection under the wheel.• Perhaps based on back calculations through knowledge of pave-ment stess, strain and layer thickness.C. obtain a continuous function Curvature(x) describing the curvature asa function of the positive position from the center of the wheel.Other things to consider• How the dynamic spatial load variation influences the measurementswhen driving on bumpy roads or in curves• Estimate the number of sensors required to obtain a certain precision.62 Study Group: A two-parameter ModelThe objective for the Study Group is (see section 1.4) to propose a family offunctions of sufficient complexity to provide a model of the physical process(i.e., the resilient deformation of the road surface) yet simple enough to per-mit analysis of the shape of the deflection velocity and also of the curvatureof the deformation.The measurements available for the Study Group have been taken at threepoints along the x axis: 100 mm, 200 mm and 300 mm. A mathematicalmodel with many free parameters can generically be made to fit perfectlyto a few measurement points. There should in general be strictly more datapoints than free parameters in the model. In view of this, the Study Groupdecided to consider a two-parameter model for the road.2.1 Winkler foundation ModelThis model consists of an elastic beam with Youngs modulus E supported ona base of a material of uniform elasticity characterised by a ‘spring constant’k. This is a variant of a two-layer model where only vertical displacementsand no compressions of the base material is modelled. The beam extendsinfinitely in the horizontal direction. See figure 7.EkFigure 7: The Winkler foundation model. An elastic beam of thickness H andwith Young modulus E rests on a perfectly elastic substrate characterised by a‘spring constant’ k.Suppose such a system is subjected to a point force of magnitude F in the7−z direction. The resulting beam equation (see e.g., [2]) is:Ed4dx4w(x) = −Fδ(x) + kw(x) (2)has boundary conditions that the displacement w(x) vanish at x→ ±∞ andthat (d/dx)w(0+) = 0.This results in a two-parameter (A > 0, B > 0) family of solutions for thedisplacement d(x) which, without loss of generality, has the form:d(x) = − A2Be−Bx [cos(Bx) + sin(Bx)] (3)Here A and B are connected with the model parameters in the followingway:E =F4AB2I, k =FB2AorA =F2√kEI, B =4√k4EIThe family (3) of d-functions displays the indentation which damps expo-nentially away and oscillates about the 0-reference level. See figure 8.40.55x60.0−0.521.0−1.030y1d(x)d’(x)Figure 8: Representatives of the family of functions d(x) and their derivativesd′(x) (for positive values of x).8This family d(x;A,B) of indentation function has the following properties:d′(x) = A sin(Bx)e−Bxd′′(x) = AB(cos(Bx)− sin(Bx))e−BxCurvature κ(x) =d′′√1 + (d′)2=AB [cos(Bx)− sin(Bx)] e−Bx√1 + A2 sin2(Bx)e−2BxUsing this family of curves (which are smooth for x > 0) we can provide ananswer to the set of questions posed by Greenwood.In terms of d(x;A,B),• The maximal indentation, at x = 0: d(0) = − A2B• The maximal slope, occurring at x = pi4Bis d( pi4B) = e−pi/4√2A• The curvature at x = 0 is κ(0) = ABRemark. Using a δ-function as the force term corresponds to constructingthe Green’s function for the problem. A more realistic model should integrated(x;A,B) over a line segment (the ‘footprint’ of the tire, assuming, say, aneven force distribution throughout the footprint). This should provide a moreaccurate model of the indentation resulting from an extended load.2.2 Comparison with Measurements and BISAR data0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7−230−220−210−200−190−180−170−160xDeflectionPoint force − Bisardata610ms20C.txtfitdataFigure 9: Comparison between the point force elastic beam model functiond(x;A,B) and numerical computation data from the BISAR program, assuming a3-layer model. Blue = model, Red = data9Figure 9 shows a comparison between the best (parameters A and B chosenby a least squared method) elastic beam method function d(x;A,B) andthe curve constructed from the output of a BISAR computation assuming a3-layer model.1 2 3 4 5 651015202530DatasetAverage least square errorError ananlysis#r a alysisPoint force modelLine segment modelFigure 10: Comparison between the least-squared errors of the point force modeland the line-integration model, relative to BISAR data. Note the two methodsgive very nearly the same error.As remarked at the end of the previous section, one would expect an inte-gral over an interval (in 2D an integral over an area) better to model theshape resulting from a tire pressing down on the surface. Initial numericalexperiments however indicate that this is not the case. Figure 10 shows thedifference in the average error (relative to a data from BISAR output) com-paring a best point force fit with a best line integral fit. The two calculationshave very nearly the same errors.A more systematic study of the d(x;A,B) function fit to BISAR data wascarried out. Figure 11 shows a typical comparison between numerical outputfrom the BISAR program and the best fit of d(x;A,B) function (labelledAPPROX) to the data. The ‘best fit’ is based on a numerical minimization.The minimization problem is one-dimensional, based on an error term E offormE =N∑n=1∑Nn=1Bnχn∑Nn=1 χ2n(χn −Bn)2where Bn denotes the BISAR data points at positions xn and χn are defined asχn = e−Bxn(cos(Bxn) + sin(Bxn)), while A has been separately determined10fromA =∑Nn=1Bnχn∑Nn=1 χ2nFigure 11: Near x = 0 best fit between the BISAR predicted indentation (shownpositive) and the d(x;A,B) indentation function.Figure 12 shows four comparisons between HVD deflection velocity data(blue) and the deflection velocity (red) predicted by the d(x;A,B) functions.0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0-2 002 04 06 08 01 0 0P o sitio nSlope of DeflectionE X P DA TAA P P RO X 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0-5 005 01 0 01 5 02 0 0P o sitio nSlope of DeflectionE X P DA TAA P P RO X 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0-5 005 01 0 01 5 02 0 02 5 0P o sitio nSlope of DeflectionE X P DA TAA P P RO X 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0-5 005 01 0 01 5 02 0 0P o sitio nSlope of DeflectionE X P DA TAA P P RO X Figure 12: Four comparison between measured deflection velocity data and bestfit to the data of the deflection velocity predicted by the d(x;A,B) function.11In figure 12, the continuous deflection velocity curve has been obtained froma paramter fit. Again, given the deflection data points Dn, the parameter Ahas first been taken asA =∑Nn=1Dnζn∑Nn=1 ζ2nwhere ζn = e−Bxn sin(Bxn) are the model predictions, and then B is deter-mined by minimizing the error functionE =N∑n=1∑Nn=1Dnζn∑Nn=1 ζ2n(ζn −Dn)2 .Note from figure 12 that the deflection data are only on one side of themaximum of the deflection velocity curve. A better fit, and also a morecritical test of the model, would be obtained with more sensor points at atgreater distance from x = 0.3 Suggestions for future workAn increase in the number of sensors on the HSD will open up for a moreaccurate modelling. By replacing the ‘beam’ in the Winkler Model by a layercharacterised by both a Young’s Modulus E and a Poisson ration ν, one maybe able to develop an analytic, or perhaps semi-analytic more accurate 3-parameter model.(E,   )νFigure 13: A three-parameter ‘Elastic Layer’ model.12In a model of this type one cannot expect the deflection d to have the sim-ple paramter dependence of the Winkler foundation model. On the otherhand, the perhaps unrealistic oscillations around the unperturbed surfacelevel inherent in the Winkler model might not be present in this ElasticLayer model.4 ConclusionIn this report we have discussed a simple analytical model, the ‘Winklerfoundation’ model, resulting in a 2-parameter explicit family d(x;A,B) offunctions modelling the deflection of a point force as a function of distancex from the impact point.We have observed very little change in the indentation shape when the pointforce was integrated over a rectangular ‘footprint’.The family d(x;A,B) are continuous (even twice continuously differentiable),and thereby permit explicit formulas predicting the maximal deflection, andalso the curvature as a function of distance x from the wheel impact point.We have compared the model prediction to simulated (BISAR) data and con-clude that we can obtain very good agreement.We have compared the model to HSD experimental data and found that wecan fit all sets of three data point quite well with the 2-parameter family offunctions.We propose (but do not solve) a three-parameter model which allows forcompression of the top layer.——– o O o ——–13References[1] P.Ullidtz: Modelling Flexible Pavement Response and Performance,Polyeknisk Forlag ISBN 87-502-0805-5 (1998).[2] A.C. Fowler: Mathematical Models in the Applied Sciences, CambridgeTexts in Applied Mathematics (1995).[3] J.M. Duva & J.G. Simmons: Elementary Static Beam Theory is as Accu-rate as You Please, Transactions of the ASME, 57, 134, (1990).[4] H.M.S. Westergaard: New formulas for stresses in Concrete Pavementsof Airfields, Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 113, (1947).14

Beneath the Wheel - Greenwood Engineering

http://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/128005309/greenwood.pdf

Beneath the Wheel - Greenwood Engineering

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Online Research Database In Technology