Predicting Flexible Pavement Distress and IRI Considering Subgrade Resilient Modulus of Fine-Grained Soils Using MEPDG

Islam, Kazi Moinul; Gassman, Sarah L.

doi:10.3390/ma16031126

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, B278 has 3 segments, B278--1, B278--2 and B278--3. The detailed procedures used to collect the thin-walled Shelby tube and bulk soil samples are documented in Islam and Gassman (2023) [28]. Note that the AC thickness of Hole A was used to calculate in situ stress.…”

Section: Pavement Profile Layer Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The values are summarized in Table 2. After completing the MR testing procedure (see Islam and Gassman (2023) [28] for details), the MR was calculated for 15 sequences per AASHTO T307. For determining k1, k2, and k3, Equation (1) was simplified and transferred to the logarithmic function.…”

Section: Calculate In Situ Stress For the Existing Pavement Sectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The files are each reported monthly, including temperature, wind speed, cloud cover, precipitation, and relative humidity. The traffic input parameters for PMED analysis were obtained from Islam and Gassman (2023) [28].…”

Section: Pavement Input Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Predicting flexible pavement performance is highly dependent on the accuracy of the M R value. Islam and Gassman (2023) [28] found that the laboratory-measured M R obtained using the stress state in NCHRP-285 predicted higher rutting than the M R back calculated from FWD testing and PMED v2.6.2.2 default values. The rutting predicted from the laboratory-measured M R exceeded the field-measured distress but was below the design threshold.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effect of the Field-Stress State on the Subgrade Resilient Modulus for Pavement Rutting and IRI

Islam

Gassman

2023

Geotechnics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The new Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) uses the subgrade resilient modulus (MR) as the key input parameter to represent the subgrade soil behavior for pavement design. The resilient modulus increases with an increase in confining pressure, whereas, for an increase in deviatoric stress, it increases for granular soils and decreases for fine-grained soils. The value of MR is highly stress dependent, with the stress state (i.e., bulk stress) a function of the position of the materials in the pavement structure and applied traffic loading. Applying excessive vertical stress at the top of the subgrade without knowing the appropriate stress state can result in permanent deformation. In situ stress must be calculated so the correct resilient modulus can be determined. To facilitate the implementation of MEPDG, this study develops a methodology to select the appropriate subgrade resilient modulus for predicting rutting and IRI. A comprehensive research methodology was undertaken to study the effect of in situ or undisturbed subgrade MR on pavement performance using the MEPDG. Results show that MR obtained from in situ stress is approximately 1.4 times higher than the MR estimate from NCHRP-285. Thus, the in situ stress significantly affects the calculation of subgrade MR and, subsequently, the use of MR in the predicted rutting, with IRI using the AASHTOWare pavement mechanistic-empirical design. Results also show that the pavement sections were classified as in “Good” and “Fair” conditions for rutting and IRI, respectively, considering in situ MR.

show abstract

Section: Pavement Profile Layer Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Calculate In Situ Stress For the Existing Pavement Sectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pavement Input Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations