TEST FELD 1

Config 1:

CH1: DMS6
CH2: DMS2
CH3: DMS3
CH4: DMS4
CH5: X
CH6: X
CH7: DMS7
CH8: DMS5

Config 2:

CH1: DMS6
CH2: DMS2
CH3: DMS3
CH4: DMS4
CH5: X
CH6: X
CH7: DMS7
CH8: DMS8

In general, the first observation it is possible to see is that the instantaneous deformation is bigger in
the reference field compared to the reinforced one. This is initially a good result in fact we expect that
under minor deformations the reinforced pavement should have a longer life respect the reference
one.
It is also been shown that the permanent deformation, showed in the profilometer analysis, is bigger in
the reinforced pavement compared to the reference one. This should be interpreted like a negative
fact for the initial hypothesis. In spite of this fact we suppose that the major permanent deformation in
the reinforced pavement should due to the SAMI which initially makes deformations bigger.
Each of the pavement in the Test Feld 1 show that the loading, applied without any lateral wandering,
create a canalized range of deformations major at the center of the loading footprint.

During November, 14 2014, between 120000 and 135000 loading cycles the first crack appear on the
st

surface of the Reference (1 pavement). Until 150000 loading cycles no cracks appear on the 2
forced) pavement.

nd

(rein-

TEST FELD 2
Config 1:

CH1: DMS2
CH2: DMS3
CH3: DMS6
CH4: DMS7
CH5: X
CH6: X
CH7: DMS1
CH8: DMS5

Config 2:

CH1: DMS2
CH2: DMS3
CH3: DMS6
CH4: DMS7
CH5: X
CH6: X
CH7: DMS4
CH8: DMS8

In this Test Feld the instantaneous deformations are quite similar one to each other. It can be shown
also that the permanent deformations are similar and that each one present an amplitude and maximum deformation lower compared to them of the Test Feld 1. However, it has to be considered that in
this case the deformation is quite more lateral distributed even if also in this case there is no lateral
wandering applied. This means that the reinforcements in these cases, distributing stresses and strain
on a major area decrease the punctual distresses applied and this should help the pavement to resist
for longer time during its life but also it should reduce the risk for the rutting of the pavement.

In this case, the profilometer data analysis shows that the two pavements have more or less the same
deformation behavior after loading. The maximum deformation is quite the same and also the shape.

It is possible to see that after more or less 150000 cycles something happens in the last pavement in
fact the behavior of the perpendicular strain recorded change. It is possible to see that the same thing
happened also later in the third pavement. It is possible to see that the shape of the recorded strains
change from traction-compression to traction-compression-traction in both the case. The reason could
be the crack growing. It is not possible to see anything at the top of the pavement so it could be interpreted like a good skill of the grid that moreover that increase the resistance of the pavement (increasing the total cycles number at which the crack growing starts) it doesnt permit the crack propagation
to the top of the pavement or at least it could postponed than in reference condition (but we will see).
rd

Until 200000 cycles is not possible to see any cracks on the pavement surface of neither the 3 or the
th

4 pavement.