Mechanistic-Empirical Models

Calibration of Mechanistic-Empirical Models for Cracking and Rutting of New Pavements Using Heavy Vehicle Simulator Tests

Dynatest International, Naverland 32, Glostrup, DK 2600, DENMARK, Email: pullidtz@dynatest.com
University of California, Davis, California, USA, Email: jtharvey@ucdavis.edu
California Department of Transportation, California, USA, Email: Khalid_Ghuslan@dot.ca.gov
University of California, Berkeley, California, USA, Email: bwtsai@berkeley.edu
University of California, Davis, California, USA, Email: bdsteven@ucdavis.edu
University of California, Berkeley, California, USA, Email: clm@newton.berkeley.edu

| Abstract /Introduction | HVS Tests | IRME | | Unbound Layers |
| Summary of Results for All Calibration Sections | Conclusion | Acknowledgement & References |


HVS Tests

Since 1995 the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has owned and operated two HVS equipments in cooperation with the University of California Pavement Research Center (UCPRC). The HVS tests described in this paper were all done on flexible pavements and are from the period 1995 to 2004.

During HVS testing, pavement response - in terms of deflections at the surface and/or at multiple depths - was measured at regular intervals (Harvey et al., 1996). A Road Surface Deflectometer (RSD) was used to measure deflections at the surface between the tires of a dual wheel, similarly to the Benkelman Beam. Multi-Depth Deflectometers (MDDs) were installed in a number of the test sections to measure both the resilient deflections and the permanent deformations at multiple depths. The pavement profile was measured using a laser profilometer, and any distress at the surface of the pavement was recorded.

The HVS test series were grouped by “Goals”. The temperature was controlled for all of the tests. The Goals modeled, and their controlled test temperatures and conditions were:

  • Goal 1, a comparison of new pavement structures with and without Asphalt Treated Permeable Base (ATPB) layer, tested under dry conditions, moderate temperatures (20 °C)
  • Goal 3 Cracking, a comparison of reflection cracking performance of Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix – Gap Graded (ARHM-GG) and Dense Graded Asphalt Concrete (DGAC) overlays placed on the cracked Goal 1 sections, dry conditions, 20 °C
  • Goal 3 Rutting, a comparison of rutting performance of ARHM-GG and DGAC overlays of previously untrafficked areas of Goal 1 pavements, dry conditions, 40 °C and 50 °C at 50 mm depth, four different tire/wheel types (bias-ply duals, radial duals, wide-base single and aircraft)
  • Goal 5, a comparison of new pavement structures with and without ATPB layer under wet conditions (water introduced into base layers), moderate temperatures, 20 °C
  • Goal 9, initial cracking of asphalt pavement with six replicate sections in preparation for later overlay, new pavement, ambient rainfall, 20 °C.

Details on the testing and analysis can be found in Ullidtz et al. (2007)

<< Abstract /Introduction