1 2 3 4 5
The Impact of Pavement Structural Response on Vehicle Fuel Consumption
Erdem Coleri1; and John T. Harvey, Affiliate M. ASCE2
6 7 8
ABSTRACT
9
In this study, vehicle energy consumption induced by the viscous behavior of asphalt
10
pavement materials was calculated by using 3D viscoelastic finite element (FE) modeling.
11
Five pavement structures with conventional, rubber, and polymer-modified asphalt overlay
12
mixes with old asphalt, cracked concrete, and cement treated base (CTB) underlying layers
13
were modeled to evaluate the impact of structure type on calculated excess fuel consumption
14
(EFC). A fully loaded 18 wheel tractor-trailer was simulated. EFC was defined as the fuel
15
consumption beyond what occurs for an ideal pavement with no energy consumed due to
16
structural response. A total of 234 FE models for a full factorial design were developed to
17
simulate the impacts of three speed levels (8, 52, 105 kph), two subgrade stiffnesses (50 and
18
200 MPa), and nine temperatures (0oC to 80oC at 10oC intervals) on calculated EFC. Results
19
show that the greatest EFC is primarily observed at pavement temperatures higher than 40oC.
20
For an average truck highway speed of 97 kph, average pavement temperatures for three
21
cities in California (Daggett, Sacramento, and San Francisco) result in excess fuel
22
consumptions ranging from 0.1% to 0.35% for the structures analyzed in this study. Although
23
this level of EFC appears to be much less than typical roughness related EFC, models for
24
EFC due to structural response can aid in decision-making processes, particularly where 1
Assistant Professor, School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, 101 Kearney Hall, Corvallis, OR, USA, 97331, Tel: (541) 737-0944, Email:
[email protected]. 2
Professor, University of California Pavement Research Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, Tel: (530) 754-6409,
[email protected].
25
models show it to be greatest. Polymer-modified overlays were observed to have the highest
26
EFC when compared with other structures. Having a concrete layer or a CTB layer under the
27
asphalt overlay rather than having an aged asphalt layer did not create any significant
28
reduction in EFC. Subgrade stiffness was also not observed to be a significant factor
29
affecting EFC.
30 31
Key words: excess fuel consumption; viscoelasticity; energy dissipation; pavement; asphalt;
32
finite element modeling.
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
56
INTRODUCTION
57
Pavements can influence the fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of vehicles
58
through three mechanisms, which together can be called the pavement-related rolling
59
resistance (Coleri et al. 2015). These three mechanisms are: i) roughness: consumption of
60
energy through the working of shock absorbers, drive train components, and deformation of
61
tire sidewalls related to pavement roughness; ii) texture: consumption of energy through
62
viscoelastic working of the tire rubber in the tire/pavement contact patch as it passes over
63
positive macrotexture of the pavement surface; and iii) asymmetrical and viscoelastic
64
deformation: Consumption of energy in the pavement itself through asymmetrical (due to
65
any dissipation mechanisms within pavement such as damage and dissipation between
66
layers) and viscoelastic deformation of pavement materials.
67 68
A number of models have been developed for energy dissipation by the deflection
69
mechanism, including models developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
70
(Louhghalam et al. 2013; Louhghalam et al. 2014), the University of Lyons National School
71
of Public Works of the State (Pouget et al. 2011), the Swedish National Road and Transport
72
Research Institute (VTI) (Jonsson and Hultqvist 2009) and Michigan State University. There
73
is active research in the development of these models, and several general approaches are
74
being used by model developers. The MIT model has been used to characterize the Virginia
75
DOT pavement network albeit with very simplified structure, climate and load information
76
(Akbarian et al. 2014). Kim et al. (2016) also developed a new method for estimating the
77
energy dissipation in the tire and the suspension of vehicles traversing rough non-deformable
78
pavements. Shakiba et al. (2016) also developed a mechanics based model for predicting
79
structure-induced rolling resistance. The effects of tire contact stresses, viscoelastic
80
properties, speed, and temperature were evaluated. None of these models has been
81
empirically calibrated yet. Empirical calibration in the field is difficult because most of the
82
response occurs at hotter temperatures limiting the time available, and measurements can
83
only be done on nearly windless days.
84
consistent pavement structures where traffic flow allows for relatively slow constant
85
operation are also needed. A model calibration study is currently collecting calibration data
86
in California.
Long, straight, flat sections of roadway with
87 88
Models are needed for the use stage of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies for pavement that
89
include the effects of pavements on vehicle fuel use (Van Dam et al. 2015). Models for
90
calculating the GHG emissions from pavement rehabilitation and maintenance, materials
91
production and construction, and the resulting changes in pavement roughness and
92
macrotexture, have been developed by the University of California Pavement Research
93
Center (UCPRC) and implemented in LCA procedures that are being used to analyze
94
Caltrans practices for potential use in network and project-level decision-making (Wang et
95
al. 2012; Wang et al. 2014). Models considering roughness and texture developed by Chatti
96
and Zaabar (2012) adapted by Wang et al. (2012 and 2014) have also been used by others for
97
similar purposes such as Dass and Mukherjee (2011) and Ozer et al. (2017).
98 99
Models for the roughness mechanism (1st mechanism stated above) are well established and
100
have been empirically validated and calibrated. Chatti and Zaabar (2012) concluded that a 1
101
m/km (63.4 in./mi) decrease in pavement roughness results in a 3% decrease in the fuel
102
consumption for passenger cars at highway speeds, which translates into an annual fuel
103
savings of $24 billion in the U.S. For heavy trucks, this decrease is about 1% at a normal
104
highway speed of 96 km/h and about 2% at low speed at a speed of 56 km/h. This paper
105
focuses on the quantification of energy consumption due to viscoelastic deformation of
106
pavement materials (3rd mechanism stated above) using finite element (FE) modeling. The
107
significance of viscoelastic deformation related fuel consumption when compared to
108
roughness related consumption is investigated. The impacts of temperature, vehicle speed,
109
pavement structure, and material type on viscoelastic deformation related fuel consumption
110
were investigated.
111 112
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
113
The major goals of this study are as follows:
114
Compare the pavement structural response related EFC for different pavement
115
structures with conventional dense graded, rubberized and polymer modified
116
overlays.
117
118 119
graded asphalt concrete (DGAC), and cement treated base) on EFC.
120 121
Develop a method to simplify the thermal gradient simulation in asphalt pavements to facilitate the use of thermal gradients in network level applications.
124 125
Evaluate the effects of temperature and speed on EFC for different pavement material types.
122 123
Determine the impact of underlying bounded materials (cracked concrete, old dense
Determine the accuracy of calculated total vehicle EFC determined by calculating the EFC from one tire and multiplying it by the number of tires on a vehicle.
Using the climate data for three cities in California, determine the approximate
126
contribution of structural response related fuel consumption to total fuel consumption
127
of a fully loaded 18 wheel semi-tractor trailer.
128 129
130
GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR MODEL DEVELOPMENT
131
Materials and Testing
132
Four asphalt mixes were tested in this study to develop viscoelastic FE models: i) New
133
DGAC: a dense graded mixture with PG 64-16 binder with a nominal maximum aggregate
134
size (NMAS) of 19mm, 5.2% binder content, 4% air-void content, 15.5% voids in mineral
135
aggregate (VMA), and 74.9% voids filled with asphalt (VFA); ii) Rubberized Hot-Mix
136
Asphalt (RHMA): a gap-graded rubberized asphalt mix with PG 64-16 binder with an
137
NMAS of 12.5mm, 7.5% binder content, 4% air-void content, 18.7% VMA, and 78.8%
138
VFA; iii) Polymer-Modified (PM): a dense graded polymer modified mixture with PG 64-
139
28 binder with an NMAS of 25mm, 6.0% binder content, 4.3% air-void content, 17.6%
140
VMA, and 74.9 VFA; iv) Aged DGAC: a highly field aged dense graded mixture with PG
141
64-16 binder with an NMAS of 19mm. After mixing, all mixtures [except the Aged DGAC
142
(field mix)] were subjected to short-term oven-aging at 135°C for four hours (AI 2001).
143
Dynamic modulus (compressive stiffness) of these four asphalt mixes were determined by
144
conducting experiments with two replicates of each mix at four temperatures (4, 21, 38,
145
55oC) for a frequency sequence of 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, 0.1 Hz. Master curves developed for a
146
reference temperature of 21 oC are shown in Figure 1. It can be observed that Aged DGAC
147
mix has a significantly higher dynamic modulus than all other mixes. PM mix has the lowest
148
dynamic modulus values for all loading frequencies.
149 150
Model Details
151
A viscoelastic finite element (FE) model was developed to calculate the dissipated energy
152
under different conditions. Energy dissipation due to damping in the subgrade and all other
153
layers other than those that are asphalt-bound was not simulated in the model. In the
154
developed viscoelastic FE model, only the linear behavior was considered (small strain
155
domain). The possible impacts of pavement distresses (fatigue, permanent deformations, and
156
cracks) were not taken into account. The material constituting the base is considered isotropic
157
linear elastic.
158 159
The temperature dependency of the asphalt mix was defined by using the Williams-Landel-
160
Ferry (WLF) equation, given as follows (Ferry 1980):
161 162
log( aT )
163
where
164 165
C1 T Tref
C 2 T Tref
(1)
aT = the time-temperature shift factor, C1 and C2 = regression coefficients,
166
Tref = the reference temperature, and
167
T = test temperature.
168 169
To optimize the regression coefficients C1 and C2, the shear modulus data were first fitted to
170
a sigmoid function, in the form of:
171
log G
172
where
173
174
1 exp log
(2)
= regression coefficients, and reduced time.
175 176
Shift factors were calculated by fitting the measured modulus to the sigmoidal function (Eqn.
177
2). One shift factor was calculated at each test temperature while the shift factor for the
178
reference temperature (21oC) is set at zero. A MatlabTM code was developed to optimize the
179
regression coefficients and shift factors for all temperatures. Regression coefficients
180
C1 and C2 were calculated by simply fitting the WLF equation to the calculated shift factors.
181
C1 for New DGAC, PM, and RHMA mixes were calculated to be 36.7, 17.2, and 16.6,
182
respectively. C2 for New DGAC, PM, and RHMA mixes were calculated to be 300.8, 149.1,
183
and 131.9, respectively.
184 185
The generalized Maxwell-type viscoelastic model (Prony series) was used in this study to
186
simulate the time dependency. The model consists of two basic units, a linear elastic spring
187
and a linear viscous dash-pot. Various combinations of these spring and dashpot units define
188
the type of viscoelastic behavior. The implementation procedure developed by Pouget et al.
189
(2011) was used to simulate the effects of truck loads, vehicle speed, and temperature on
190
dissipated energy.
191 192
AbaqusTM software was used for model development.
193
represented by a 3.5 m long and 2 m wide slab. The finite-element mesh consists of Lagrange
194
brick elements with a second-order interpolation function. The mesh was refined under the
195
wheel path. International Roughness Index (IRI) and macrotexture are not simulated in the
196
model. Therefore, the effects of vehicle suspension dynamics on the wheel load were not
197
simulated.
The pavement structure was
198 199
The bottom side of the model is clamped. The symmetry condition in the transversal
200
direction imposes a boundary condition on one side. To ensure the continuity of this slab
201
with the rest of pavement, only vertical displacement was allowed for other lateral sides
202
(Pouget et al. 2011). Perfect bonding was assumed between different pavement layers.
203 204
In order to simulate moving wheel loading in the viscoelastic FE model, the trapezoidal
205
impulsive loading method (quasi-static) was used (Yoo et al. 2006). Only one vehicle was
206
simulated in this study, a fully loaded (maximum gross vehicle weight in many states), 18
207
wheel class 9 truck. The tire is assumed to have a square contact area (175 by 175 mm) and
208
the distribution of load on the tire is assumed to be constant. Tire pressure of the truck was
209
assumed to be 670 kPa. For a class 9 truck with 18 tires (one single steering axle and two
210
dual-tandem axles), the simulated total loaded truck weight adds up to be 37.7 tons.
211 212
The dissipated energy per time w(t) was integrated on a d long slice of the asphalt layer,
213
located in the center of the 3.5 m long structure. The dissipated energy for a truck (Wtruck)
214
with Z dual wheels, covering a distance of X can be calculated using the following equation
215
(Pouget et al. 2011):
216 217
Wtruck
wt dt xd Z
(3)
218 219
Where w(t) is calculated using the following equation in which E is the phase angle, 0z is
220
the stress curve for the loading time while 0z is the strain for the same loading time for a unit
221
volume dV. Unit volume is the volume of each Lagrange brick element in the center of the
222
3.5 m long structure with a d long slice (Pouget et al. 2011):
223 224
E 0z 0z dV
w(t) sin
(4)
225 226
Sensitivity Analysis
227
Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of several factors on calculated
228
deflection basin and excess fuel consumption (EFC). The model developed for the project
229
was revised and improved according to the findings of the sensitivity analysis. The factors
230
considered for the sensitivity analyses were i) Temperature gradient and ii) Number of tires.
231 232
Temperature Gradient Effect
233
In this section, the impact of using an average temperature for the complete asphalt layer
234
rather than simulating the temperature gradients is investigated. Using an average
235
temperature for the complete asphalt layer creates a significant reduction in model run times.
236
Asphalt layer temperature distributions for a summer day were simulated using a random air
237
and surface temperature for Sacramento and the software Enhanced Integrated Climatic
238
Model (EICM) (Zapata and Houston 2008). The distribution of temperatures along the
239
asphalt depth at different times of the day are given in Figure 2. The asphalt layer in the FE
240
model was divided into 10 layers (Figure 3a) and the temperatures given in Figure 2 were
241
assigned to the layers.
242 243
EFC outputs were determined for all six hours of the day used for the analysis. These results
244
were assumed to be the ground truth outputs simulating the effect of temperature gradients on
245
EFC. In addition, four finite element models were developed by using only one temperature
246
for the complete asphalt layer. Temperatures at the surface (0 mm depth), at 75mm depth
247
(one third depth), at 125mm depth, and at 175mm depth were used for the analysis (Figure
248
2). Figure 3(b) shows the distribution of EFC at different times of the selected day for five
249
different cases with: i) actual temperature gradient simulated (ground truth); ii) surface
250
temperatures; iii) temperature at one third depth (75 mm); iv) temperature at 125mm depth;
251
and v) temperature at 175mm depth.
252 253
It can be observed from Figure 3(b) that simulations conducted with the temperature at one
254
third depth (75mm) provides EFC values that are almost identical to the case with the actual
255
temperature gradient. To check the validity of this conclusion for sections with thinner
256
asphalt layers, a model with the same material properties and with a thinner (175mm thick)
257
asphalt layer was developed. A temperature profile for an air temperature of 26.6oC and a
258
surface temperature of 31.8 oC at 10am was developed using the EICM software. The model
259
had seven sublayers for the asphalt layer to be able to input the thermal gradient.
260 261
Results showed that the excess fuel consumption for the model with seven sublayers in the
262
asphalt layer was almost identical to the section with one asphalt layer using the one-third
263
depth temperature (EFC7sublayers=1.44ml/km; EFCone-third
264
suggested that there is no need to simulate temperature gradients in the simulations for the
265
sections considered in this study. These results suggest that for the calculation of annual fuel
266
use (network level application), pavement temperatures at one third depth can be used to
267
simulate the effect of temperature gradients throughout the pavement depth. This assumption
268
can create a significant reduction in model development and run times. Model runtime is
269
longer since additional calculations are required at the boundaries between additional layers.
temp=1.43ml/km).
These results
270 271
The validity of this assumption for predicting vertical strain ( was also investigated.
272
Calculated vertical strain for a surface volume element in the middle of the model structure
273
for the section with seven sublayers was determined to be almost identical to the section with
274
one asphalt layer using the one-third depth temperature (7sublayers=152.8; one-third
275
temp=147.4).
276 277
Number of Tires
278
The effect of number of tires used for the finite element modeling was investigated. The
279
objective was to determine minimum number of tires that will provide total dissipated energy
280
that is close to the dissipated energy calculated from a four-tire model. The objective was to
281
reduce model runtime by reducing the number of tires. Figure 4 shows the displacement field
282
for the finite element models with: i) one tire; ii) two tires; and iii) four tires (one side of
283
dual-tandem axle). Figure 5(a) shows the change in calculated dissipated energy with
284
temperature for models with one, two, and four tires. The increase in dissipated energy with
285
increasing number of tires can be observed. However, when the dissipated energy values in
286
Figure 5(a) are divided by the number of tires, all three curves overlap (Figure 5b). This
287
result suggests that total vehicle dissipated energy and EFC can be accurately calculated by
288
modeling one tire and multiplying the output by the number of tires on the vehicle.
289 290
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
291
Several FE models were developed to evaluate the impacts of temperature, vehicle speed,
292
subgrade stiffness, mix types, and structural properties on pavement structural response
293
related EFC. Figure 6 shows the structures for which models were developed. For structures
294
1 through 4, models for a full factorial design were developed to simulate the impacts of
295
three speed levels (8, 52, 105 kph), two subgrade stiffnesses (50 and 200 MPa), and nine
296
temperatures (0oC to 80oC at 10oC intervals). Structure 5 was used to evaluate the impact of
297
having a cement treated base (CTB) layer under the asphalt layer rather than having an old
298
DGAC layer. For this reason, in order to reduce the number of model simulations, models for
299
structure 5 were only developed for a speed level of 52 kph. Table 1 presents the factorial
300
developed for model simulations. In this study, a total of 234 models were developed (Table
301
1).
302
303
Structures 1 through 5 were selected to simulate typical structures in California. Structures 1
304
through 3 were used to simulate the impact of rubber-modified and polymer-modified asphalt
305
mix use on EFC. Structure 4 was used to evaluate the impact of using an asphalt overlay to
306
rehabilitate cracked concrete structures in California. Cracked concrete and CTB layers were
307
simulated as elastic layers with stiffnesses 25,000 and 4,300 MPa, respectively. Aggregate
308
base (AB) and subgrade (SG) layers were also assumed to be elastic layers. All asphalt layers
309
were assumed to be linear viscoelastic materials. Boundary conditions and truck loads used
310
for modeling were discussed in the “Model details” section.
311 312
RESULTS
313
Stress, strain, and phase angle were integrated over time to calculate dissipated energy in the
314
pavement (Eqn.3 and Eqn.4). Calculated dissipated energy values were converted to energy
315
required to make the vehicle move. Finally, EFC for all temperatures, structures, subgrade
316
stiffnesses, and speeds were calculated by dividing the calculated dissipated energy (MJ/km)
317
by the calorific value of the fuel (MJ/L) (Eqn. 5). The calorific value of diesel for trucks is
318
assumed to be 40 MJ/L (Coleri et al. 2015). Since the engine efficiency of trucks are
319
generally around 40 percent, 16MJ/L (40x0.40) is used as the final calorific value of diesel
320
for trucks (Chatti and Zaabar 2012; Coleri et al. 2015). By using a 40 L/100km (400 ml/km)
321
fuel consumption rate for a 40-ton truck (Sharpe and Muncrief 2015), percent EFC is
322
calculated using Eqn. 6.
323 324
325
excess fuel consumption (
ml ) km
Wtruck MJ Fuel calorific L
1000
(5)
excess fuel consumption (ml / km) 100 400 ml / km
326
excess fuel consumption (%)
327
Results are shown in Figures 7 through 11 for all structures. In general, much higher EFC can
328
be observed at pavement temperatures higher than 40oC. For some cases, EFC starts to
329
decrease at very high temperatures (Figure 7 and 10). This reduction is a result of change in
330
asphalt behavior from viscoelastic to elastic at very high temperatures (Pouget et al. 2011).
331
Although 40oC and higher pavement temperatures are commonly observed on roadways on
332
summer days, pavement temperature distributions for different climate regions need to be
333
combined with the EFC curves obtained in this study to determine the importance of
334
structural response on fuel consumption. The annual pavement temperature distributions at
335
one-third depth for Daggett, Sacramento, and San Francisco in California were calculated by
336
using the weather station data and the Enhanced Integrated Climate Model (EICM).
337
Distributions for a year are shown in Figure 12. These distributions were used to find
338
temperature averages for a year and simulations for the entire distributions were not
339
conducted. The average one-third depth pavement temperatures for Daggett, Sacramento, and
340
San Francisco are 26.4oC, 24.5oC, and 20.3oC, respectively. For an average truck highway
341
speed of 97 kph in California, these average pavement temperatures result in average excess
342
fuel consumptions ranging from 0.1% to 0.35% across all 5 structures and three locations.
(6)
343 344
Although the level of EFC found in this study is smaller than typical calculations of
345
roughness related EFC, which is most likely approximately independent of EFC from
346
structural response, it can be considered in the decision-making process, and will have
347
greater significance where there are heavy vehicles traveling at slow speeds in hotter climates
348
(Harvey et al. 2015).
349
350
Simulations using this model and models from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
351
(Louhghalam et al. 2013) and Michigan State University have been used to estimate annual
352
EFC due to structural response as is described in Harvey et al. (2015). These simulations
353
included the joint distributions across representative days in each month of hourly annual
354
pavement temperatures, actual typical hourly urban and rural speed distributions for different
355
types of vehicles, and hourly distributions of car and truck wheel loads based on weigh-in-
356
motion distributions.
357 358
Table 3 also presents the EFC for different speeds and structure types for the average one-
359
third depth pavement temperatures for Daggett, Sacramento, and San Francisco. It can be
360
observed that the section with PM mix has the largest EFC while the section with RHMA
361
mix has the second largest values. Structure 2 with the polymer-modified overlay has the
362
highest EFC when compared with other structures (Figure 8-Table 3). This is a result of the
363
low stiffness of the polymer-modified mix (Figure 1). Calculated EFC for Structure 1 (New
364
DGAC on old DGAC) and Structure 3 (RHMA) were observed to be close (Figures 7 and 9 –
365
Table 3). Although the differences in EFC between Structure 1 and Structures 4 (New DGAC
366
on cracked concrete) (Figure 10) and 5 (New DGAC on CTB) (Figure 11) were not
367
significant, EFC for Structure 1 was observed to be higher than the EFC for Structures 4 and
368
5. This result suggests that having a concrete layer or a CTB layer under the asphalt overlay
369
rather than having an aged asphalt layer does not create any significant reduction in EFC, and
370
that most of the energy dissipation is near the surface in the asphalt layer.
371 372
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach was used to quantify the impact of pavement
373
temperature, speed, structure type, and subgrade stiffness on calculated EFC. The results of
374
the ANOVA are given in Table 2. Independent variables with p-values larger than 0.05 can
375
be regarded as insignificant variables. It can be observed that subgrade stiffness does not
376
have any significant effect on EFC with a p-value of 0.82 (significantly larger than 0.05). On
377
the other hand, temperature, speed, and structure type appeared to be important factors
378
affecting EFC. F values given in Table 2 suggested that temperature is the major factor
379
controlling EFC. While speed is also a significant parameter, its effect on EFC is
380
significantly lower than the influence of temperature.
381 382
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
383
In this study, vehicle energy consumption induced by the viscous behavior of asphalt
384
pavement materials was calculated by using 3D viscoelastic FE modeling. Five pavement
385
structures with conventional, rubber, and polymer-modified asphalt overlay mixes with
386
underlying old asphalt, cracked concrete, and CTB layers were modeled to evaluate the
387
impact of structure type on calculated excess fuel consumption (EFC). A total of 234 FE
388
models for a full factorial design were developed to simulate the impacts of three speed
389
levels (8, 52, 105 kph), two subgrade stiffnesses (50 and 200 MPa), and nine temperatures
390
(0oC to 80oC at 10oC intervals) on calculated EFC.
391 392 393
Results of this study can be summarized as follows:
For the structures analyzed in this study, there is no need to simulate temperature
394
gradients in the simulations. For the calculation of average annual EFC (network
395
level application), pavement temperatures at one third depth can be used to simulate
396
the effect of temperature gradients throughout the pavement depth. This assumption
397
can create a significant reduction in model run times.
398
Total vehicle dissipated energy and EFC can be accurately calculated by modeling
399 400
one tire and multiplying the output by the number of tires on the vehicle.
The greatest EFC can be observed at pavement temperatures higher than 40oC. For
401
the fully loaded truck simulated in this study and an average truck highway speed of
402
97 kph, average pavement temperatures for three cities in California (Daggett,
403
Sacramento, and San Francisco) result in EFCs ranging from 0.1% to 0.35% for the
404
structures analyzed in this study. Although this level of EFC appears to be much less
405
than the roughness related EFC (1-3%) (Chatti and Zaabar 2012), which is most
406
likely approximately independent of EFC from structural response, EFC from
407
structural response can be considered in the decision-making process, and will have
408
greater significance where there are heavy vehicles traveling at slow speeds in hotter
409
climates (Harvey et al. 2015).
410
411 412
Polymer-modified overlays showed the highest EFC when compared with other structures.
413
Having a concrete layer or a CTB layer under the asphalt overlay rather than having an aged asphalt layer did not create any significant reduction in EFC.
414
Subgrade stiffness was not observed to be a significant factor affecting EFC.
415
Temperature, speed, and structure type were determined to be important factors
416
affecting EFC. Temperature was observed to be the major factor controlling EFC.
417
While speed is also a significant parameter, its effect on EFC is significantly lower
418
than the influence of temperature.
419 420
In this study, average annual temperatures for three different cities in California were used to
421
provide a first estimate of the average percentage contribution of pavement structural
422
response on EFC. These results have been used with hourly temperature and traffic data to
423
calculate the percentage contributions for different cities. The impact of subgrade damping
424
and layer densities on EFC should also be investigated by using a dynamic model. The
425
impact of subgrade thickness and bedrock location should also be evaluated. The interaction
426
of roughness-induced dynamic loading should be considered.
427 428
The EFCs predicted in this study do not provide an absolute value associated with a
429
particular pavement, and these results are as-yet uncalibrated with field data. However,
430
results will provide important information about the impacts of speed, temperature, material
431
type, and structure configuration on pavement structural response related EFCs. This study
432
also points out the level of significance of pavement structural response on vehicle fuel
433
economy. Models should be calibrated by using field measurements.
434 435
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
436
This paper describes research activities that were requested and sponsored by the California
437
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Research and Innovation. Caltrans
438
sponsorship is gratefully acknowledged. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the
439
authors and do not reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the
440
Federal Highway Administration. The advice regarding model development elements of Dr.
441
Shmuel Weissman of Symplectic Engineering Corporation is appreciated.
442 443 444 445 446 447
448 449 450
REFERENCES
451
Akbarian, M., A. Louhghalam, and F.J. Ulm. (2014). “Mapping the excess-fuel consumption
452
due to pavement vehicle interaction: a Case study of Virginia’s interstate system.” Papers
453
from the International Symposium on Pavement LCA, Davis, CA.
454 455
Asphalt Institute. 2001. SP-2 Superpave Mix Design.
456 457
Cass, D. and Mukherjee, A. (2011) "Calculation of greenhouse gas emissions for highway
458
construction operations by using a hybrid life-cycle assessment approach: case study for
459
pavement operations." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 137.11: 1015-
460
1025.
461 462
Chatti, K. and Zaabar, I. (2012). “Estimating the effects of pavement condition on vehicle
463
operating costs.” Publication NCHRP Report 720. National Cooperative Highway Research
464
Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
465 466
Coleri, E., Harvey, J.T., Zaabar, I., Louhghalam, A., and Chatti K. (2015). “Model
467
development, field section characterization and model comparison for excess vehicle fuel use
468
due to pavement structural response.” Accepted for publication in the Transportation
469
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
470 471 472
Ferry, J. D. (1980). “Viscoelastic properties of polymers.” John & Sons.
473
Harvey, J., Lea, J.D., Kim, C., Coleri, E., Zaabar, I., Louhghalam, A., Chatti, K., Buscheck,
474
J., and Butt, A. (2015). Simulation of Cumulative Annual Impact of Pavement Structural
475
Response on Vehicle Fuel Economy for California Test Sections. University of California
476
Pavement Research Center Report UCPRC-RR-2015-05.
477 478
Jonsson, P., and Hultqvist, B.Å. (2009). “Measurement of fuel consumption on asphalt and
479
concrete pavements North of Uppsala.” Swedish National Road and Transport Research
480
Institute, Linköping, Sweden.
481 482
Kim, R.E., Kang, S., Spencer, B.F., Al-Qadi, I.L., and Ozer, H. (2016). “New stochastic
483
approach of vehicle energy dissipation on nondeformable rough pavements.” Journal of
484
Engineering Mechanics.
485 486
Louhghalam, A., Akbarian, M., and Ulm, F-J. (2013). “Flügge's conjecture: Dissipation vs.
487
deflection induced pavement-vehicle-interactions (PVI).” Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
488
140 (8), 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943‐7889.0000754.
489 490
Louhghalam, A., Akbarian, M., and Ulm, F-J. (2014). “Scaling relations of dissipation-
491
induced pavement-vehicle interaction.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of
492
Transportation Research Board, No.2457, 95-104, Washington, D.C.
493 494
Ozer, H., Yang, R., and Al-Qadi, I.. (2017) "Quantifying sustainable strategies for the
495
construction of highway pavements in Illinois." Transportation Research Part D: Transport
496
and Environment 51: 1-13.
497
498
Pouget S., Sauzéat C., Di Benedetto, H., and Olard, F. (2011). “Viscous energy dissipation in
499
asphalt pavement structures and implication for vehicle fuel consumption.” Journal of
500
Materials in Civil Engineering, 24(5):568-576.
501 502
Shakiba, M., Ozer, H., Ziyadi, M., and Al-Qadi, I.L. (2016). “Mechanics based model for
503
predicting structure-induced rolling resistance (SRR) of the tire-pavement system.”
504
Mechanics of Time-Dependent Materials, 20(4):579-600.
505 506
Sharpe, B. and Muncrief, R. (2015). “Literature review: real-world fuel consumption of
507
heavy-duty vehicles in the United States, China, and the European Union.” ICCT White
508
Paper. Washington, DC: ICCT.
509 510
Van Dam, T. Harvey, J., Muench, S., Smith, K., Snyder, M., Al-Qadi, I., and Ozer, H. (2015)
511
"Towards sustainable pavement systems: a reference document." Federal Highway
512
Administration, HIF-15-002.
513 514
Wang, T., Lee, I.-S., Kendall, A., Harvey, J., Lee, E.B., and Kim, C. (2012) “Life cycle
515
energy consumption and GHG emission from pavement rehabilitation with different rolling
516
resistance.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 33, 86-96.
517 518
Wang, T., Harvey, J., and Kendall, A. (2014) “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through
519
strategic management of highway pavement roughness.” Environmental Research Letters 9
520
034007.
521
522
Yoo, P.J., Al-Qadi, I.L., Elseifi ,M.A., and Janajreh, I. (2006). “Flexible pavement responses
523
to different loading amplitudes considering layer interface condition and lateral shear forces.”
524
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 7(1):73-86.
525 526
Zapata, C.E. and Houston, W.N. (2008). “Calibration and Validation of the Enhanced
527
Integrated Climate Model for Pavement Design.” NCHRP Report 602: Transportation
528
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
529
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Factorial Design for FE Models Table 2 ANOVA Results Identifying the Effects of Speed, Temperature, and Subgrade Stiffness on Excess Fuel Consumption Table 3 Excess Fuel Consumptions for Average Temperatures and Different Speeds (for 200MPa subgrade stiffness)
Table 1 Factorial Design for FE Models Structures
Temp. (oC)
Speed (kph)
STR#1 STR#2 STR#3 STR#4 STR#5
0, 10, 20,…,80 0, 10, 20,…,80 0, 10, 20,…,80 0, 10, 20,…,80 0, 10, 20,…,80
8, 52, 105 8, 52, 105 8, 52, 105 8, 52, 105 52
EAB (MPa) 250 250 250 250 250
ESG (MPa) 50, 200 50, 200 50, 200 50, 200 50, 200
Number of models 54 54 54 54 18
NOTE: Temp. = Temperature; EAB = Aggregate base stiffness; ESG = Subgrade stiffness.
Table 2 ANOVA Results Identifying the Effects of Speed, Temperature, and Subgrade Stiffness on Excess Fuel Consumption Variable Temp. Speed Str Esg Temp:Speed Temp:Str Temp:Esg Speed:Str Speed:Esg Str:Esg
Df 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 3 1 4
SS 1616.6 112.7 147.3 0.29 119.9 162.8 0.02 64.6 0.00 0.09
F value 303.9 21.2 6.9 0.05 22.5 7.7 0.00 4.04 0.00 0.00
p-value 0.00000 0.00000 0.00003 0.81558 0.00000 0.00000 0.94824 0.00795 0.99840 0.99996
NOTE: Temp. = Temperature; Str = Structure; Esg = Subgrade stiffness; Df = degrees of freedom; SS = sum of squares.
Table 3 Excess Fuel Consumptions for Average Temperatures and Different Speeds (for 200MPa subgrade stiffness) City Daggett Sacramento San Francisco Daggett Sacramento San Francisco Daggett Sacramento San Francisco
Average Temp.(oC) 26.4 24.5 20.3 26.4 24.5 20.3 26.4 24.5 20.3
Speed (kph) 8 8 8 52 52 52 105 105 105
EFC STR1(%) 0.38 0.33 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.13 0.17 0.14 0.09
EFC STR2(%) 0.94 0.80 0.50 0.44 0.39 0.26 0.35 0.30 0.18
EFC STR3(%) 0.56 0.48 0.30 0.29 0.26 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.15
NOTE: Temp. = Temperature; Str = Structure; EFC=Excess fuel consumption.
EFC STR4(%) 0.19 0.16 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.03
EFC STR5(%) 0.13 0.12 0.08 -
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Dynamic modulus master curves for all asphalt mixes. Figure 2 Asphalt layer temperature distributions for a summer day in Sacramento, California. Figure 3 Simulation of temperature gradient in the asphalt layer (a) Asphalt layer divided into 10 segments to simulate the effect of temperature gradient (b) Calculated excess fuel consumption for the case with temperature gradients and temperatures at different depths. Figure 4 Displacement field for the finite element models with: a) one tire b) two tires; c) four tires (one side of dual-tandem axle). Figure 5 Change in calculated dissipated energy with temperature for models with one, two, and four tires (a) total dissipated energy (b) total dissipated energy normalized by the number of tires. Figure 6 Cross sections of structures used for FE modeling. Figure 7 The impact of speed, temperature, and subgrade stiffness on fuel consumption excess - Structure 1: New DGAC on old DGAC. Figure 8 The impact of speed, temperature, and subgrade stiffness on fuel consumption excess - Structure 2: PM on old DGAC. Figure 9 The impact of speed, temperature, and subgrade stiffness on fuel consumption excess - Structure 3: RHMA on old DGAC. Figure 10 The impact of speed, temperature, and subgrade stiffness on fuel consumption excess - Structure 4: New DGAC on cracked concrete. Figure 11 The impact of temperature and subgrade stiffness on fuel consumption excess Structure 5: New DGAC on CTB. Figure 12 Cumulative distributions of pavement temperatures at one-third depth for Daggett, Sacramento, and San Francisco in California.
Temperature (C) 20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 mm
0 50
Depth (mm)
75 mm 100
125 mm 150 0:00
200 250 300
4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00
175 mm
Excess fuel consumption (ml/km)
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 With gradient 0 mm 75mm
1.5 1
125mm 175mm
0.5 0 0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
Time of day
20.00
24.00
3.0 One tire two tires
2.5
four tires
Energy (mJ)
Car
2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0
20
40
60
80
100
Temperature (C)
Energy/Number of Tires (mJ)
0.8 One tire two tires
0.7
four tires
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0
10
20
30
40
50
Temperature (C)
60
70
80
90
100 mm
New DGAC
100 mm
PM
150 mm
Old DGAC
150 mm
Old DGAC
200 mm
EAB = 250 MPa
AB
ESG = 50 and 200 MPa
SG
200 mm
EAB = 250 MPa
AB
ESG = 50 and 200 MPa
SG
100 mm
RHMA
100 mm
150 mm
Old DGAC
200 mm
EPCC = 25,000 MPa
200 mm
EAB = 250 MPa
AB
ESG = 50 and 200 MPa
SG
200 mm
EAB = 250 MPa
AB
ESG = 50 and 200 MPa
SG
100 mm
New DGAC
150 mm
ECTB = 4,300 MPa
200 mm
EAB = 250 MPa
AB
ESG = 50 and 200 MPa
SG
CTB
New DGAC Cracked PCC
Fuel consumption excess (%)
14
Speed=8kph & Esg=50MPa
12
Speed=8kph & Esg=200MPa Speed=52kph & Esg=50MPa
10
Speed=52kph & Esg=200MPa Speed=105kph & Esg=50MPa
8
Speed=105kph & Esg=200MPa
6 4 2 0 0
20
40 60 Temperature (C)
80
100
14 Fuel consumption excess (%)
Speed=8kph & Esg=50MPa
28.3% at 80oC
Speed=8kph & Esg=200MPa
12
Speed=52kph & Esg=50MPa
10
Speed=52kph & Esg=200MPa Speed=105kph & Esg=50MPa
8
Speed=105kph & Esg=200MPa
6 4 2 0 0
20
40 60 Temperature (C)
80
100
14 Fuel consumption excess (%)
Speed=8kph & Esg=50MPa Speed=8kph & Esg=200MPa
12
Speed=52kph & Esg=50MPa
10
Speed=52kph & Esg=200MPa Speed=105kph & Esg=50MPa
8
Speed=105kph & Esg=200MPa
6 4 2 0 0
20
40 60 Temperature (C)
80
100
Fuel consumption excess (%)
14
Speed=8kph & Esg=50MPa Speed=8kph & Esg=200MPa
12
Speed=52kph & Esg=50MPa
10
Speed=52kph & Esg=200MPa Speed=105kph & Esg=50MPa
8
Speed=105kph & Esg=200MPa
6 4 2 0 0
20
40 60 Temperature (C)
80
100
Fuel consumption excess (%)
14 Speed=52kph & Esg=50MPa
12 Speed=52kph & Esg=200MPa
10 8 6 4 2 0 0
20
40 60 Temperature (C)
80
100
1.0 Daggett
Cumulative distribution
0.9
Sacramento
0.8
San Francisco
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Pavement temperatures at one third depth (C)
60
70