Joint Displacement Evaluation of a Modular Road System

Abstract:

Transportation agencies have recently been struggling to carry out rapid roadway construction and repair work with minimal disruption to the motoring public, and they are pursuing sustainable and perpetual roadway systems with minimal maintenance over their service life. This study sought to develop a roadway joint system as a part of research on a sustainable-perpetual-modular (SPM) roadway system. In this study, two boundary conditions were considered with varying support offsets. Dead load, live load, and temperature load were considered and the corresponding displacements were computed. Roller supports at both ends produced larger displacements compared to hinge supports at both ends. Analysis results exhibited that a support offset equal to 0.0 m produced the smallest displacement. The results of this study will provide valuable information for the design of modular roadway joint systems.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volume 831)
• Pages: 407-410
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.831.407
• Online since: December 2013
• Authors: Woo Seok Kim, Soo Bong Park, Kang Min Lee*, Jae Joon Song, Sang Yoon Lee
• Keywords: Finite Element, Modular Roadway System, Temperature Load

References

0 -0. 02 -0. 00 -0. 03 -0. 00.

98 -0. 03.

93 -0. 03.

93.

1 -0. 02.

01 -0. 03.

05.

99.

02.

94.

08.

94.

2 -0. 02.

02 -0. 03.

10.

[1] 00.

03.

95.

15.

96.

3 -0. 02.

03.

02.

15.

[1] 01.

05.

[1] 01.

23.

[1] 04 Case 2.

0 -0. 02.

00.

00.

00.

82.

09.

80.

09.

81.

1 -0. 02.

01.

01.

00.

87 -0. 21.

86 -0. 21.

89.

2 -0. 02.

01.

02 -0. 01.

90 -0. 50.

90 -0. 50.

[1] 03.

3 -0. 02.

02.

03 -0. 03.

90 -0. 77.

91 -0. 78.

[1] 20 Table 3 Horizontal reaction force d (m) D (kN) L (kN) T (kN) D + L + T (kN).

0 0 -376 (8%) -4252 (92%) -4628 (100%).

1 0 -372 (8%) -4330 (92%) -4702 (100%).

2 0 -365 (8%) -4342 (92%) -4707 (100%).

3 0 -357 (8%) -4353 (92%) -4710 (100%) (a) d = 0. 0m (b) d = 0. 1m (c) d = 0. 2m (d) d = 0. 3m Fig. 3 Absolute displacement comparisons Conclusions This study performed a numerical analysis to determine an appropriate boundary conditions considering two cases. Horizontal and vertical displacements and horizontal reaction forces were compared to each other with varying supports offsets from 0. 0 to 0. 3 m. Case 1, that which has hinge supports at both ends, produced larger horizontal displacements and smaller vertical displacements compared to Case 2, that havewhich has roller supports at both ends. Temperature loads significantly influenced on the total displacements, approximately 96%, while dead load plus live load contributed only 4%. Also, Case 2 exhibited significant horizontal reaction forces. As expected, temperature contributed 98% of the total reaction forces. Acknowledgement This study was supported by the koreaKorea institute Institute of Construction Technology through the research project Sustainable –Prepetual-Modular (SPM) Road system Development, References정확한 정보를 찾아서 레퍼런스를 마무리하라. 내가 적은 것도 대강의 것만 적었다.

[1] Korea Road & Transportation Association: Korean Roadway Pavement Structural Design Guidelines (KRPSDG), (Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, South Korea 2011), pp.83-86.

[2] ModieSlab v. o. f. ModieSlab Brochure, Netherlands.

[3] ANSYS (Swanson Analysis Systems finite element analysis software). 2003. ANSYS: Houston, USA.

[4] Korea Road & Transportation Association: Korean Bridge Design Code (KBDC), (Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, South Korea 2012), p.75.