Ap T98 08 PDF

AP-T98/08
AUSTROADS TECHNICAL REPORT
Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to

Pavement Technology
Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology
First Published August 2008
© Austroads Inc. 2008
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology

ISBN 978-1-921329-72-2
Austroads Project No. TT1159
Austroads Publication No. AP–T98/08
Project Manager
David Hubner
Prepared by
Geoff Jameson
Published by Austroads Incorporated

Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should
rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
Sydney 2008
Austroads profile
Austroads’ purpose is to contribute to improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
by:
providing expert advice to SCOT and ATC on road and road transport issues
facilitating collaboration between road agencies
promoting harmonisation, consistency and uniformity in road and related operations
undertaking strategic research on behalf of road agencies and communicating outcomes
promoting improved and consistent practice by road agencies.
Austroads membership
Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development
and Local Government, the Australian Local Government Association, and New Zealand Transport
Agency. It is governed by a council consisting of the chief executive officer (or an alternative
senior executive officer) of each of its eleven member organisations:
Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales

Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure South Australia
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
Department of Planning and Infrastructure Northern Territory
Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
Australian Local Government Association
New Zealand Transport Agency
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in
the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road sector.
Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2 Pavement Structural Design: Chapter 1
FOREWORD
The Austroads publication Guide to Pavement Technology, Part 2: Pavement Structural Design is
intended to assist those required to plan and design new pavements. It was originally produced in
1987 as a result of review of the NAASRA Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design (1979). In
1992, the Austroads Pavement Design Guide was revised to include an updated procedure for the
design of rigid pavements and also relevant portions of Chapter 6 (Pavement Materials) and
Chapter 7 (Design Traffic).
An essential element in the use of the Guide is a thorough understanding of the origins of the
design procedures, their scope and limitations. Accordingly, this report contains the following five
technical chapters which detail the technical basis of the 1992, 2004 and 2008 editions of the
Guide:
Chapter 1: 1992 Guide procedures for the design of flexible pavements, David Potter
Chapter 2: 1992 Guide procedures for the design of rigid pavements, George Vorobieff and
John Hodgkinson
Chapter 3: 2004 Guide procedures for the design of flexible pavements, Geoff Jameson
Chapter 4: 2004 Guide procedures for the design of rigid pavements, George Vorobieff
Chapter 5: Development of Design Charts for Lightly Trafficked Roads for 2008 Guide,
Zahid Hoque and Geoff Jameson.
The five chapters are augmented by several Appendices which explain, in greater details, some of
the background to the material presented in the Guide. A comprehensive list of References also
accompanies each chapter.
The material presented here represents almost 40 years of work conducted in Australia and
overseas. A large number of people – representing Austroads member authorities, ARRB local
government, industry and consultants – have input into the development of the various editions of
the Guide and their contributions are gratefully acknowledged. I also acknowledge Geoff Jameson
for leading this project and coordinating the work and Kieran Sharp for editing the reports to ensure
consistency of expression and style.
David Hubner
Queensland Department of Main Roads
Project Manager
Austroads 2008
— i.i —
Technical Basis of Austroads Pavement Design Guide

Chapter 1: 1992 Guide Procedures for Design of Flexible Pavements
David Potter
June 1999
SUMMARY
This chapter records the work undertaken in the development of Pavement Design – A Guide to
the Structural Design of Road Pavements, initially published by the National Association of
Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) in 1987 and subsequently revised and re-issued by
Austroads in 1992. It briefly describes the predecessor and progenitor – the Interim Guide to
Pavement Thickness Design (NAASRA 1979) – and then proceeds to review the technical issues
encountered, and the solutions adopted, in the formulation of the Guide.
This material presented in the Guide represented many years of development in Australia and
overseas in design procedures for flexible pavements for highway traffic. The Guide was
developed by a series of (then) NAASRA Working Groups representing both the members of
NAASRA and industry. Note that the names of the various road authorities relevant at the time
(rather than the current names) are used throughout this report.
This report does not address the origins of Chapter 9 of the 1992 Guide – the Design of Rigid
Pavements – which is the subject of another chapter in this document (Chapter 2).
Austroads 2008
— i . ii —
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2 SETTING THE SCENE................................................................................................... 2
2.1 The Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design ........................................................ 2
2.1.1 Format of the IGPTD ........................................................................................ 3
2.1.2 Release of the IGPTD....................................................................................... 8
2.2 Establishment of a Working Group to Revise the IGPTD ............................................... 9
2.2.1 A Guide – not a Manual .................................................................................. 11
3 GRANULAR PAVEMENTS WITH THIN BITUMINOUS SURFACINGS...................... 12
3.1 Origins of the CBR-Thickness-Traffic Chart ................................................................. 12
3.1.1 Quality of Pavement Material and its Cover Requirements ............................ 15
3.1.2 Concluding Comments ................................................................................... 16
3.2 Terminal Condition........................................................................................................ 17
3.2.1 Modification of Terminal Condition ................................................................. 17
3.2.2 Implicit Model for Roughness Progression ..................................................... 19
4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MECHANISTIC PROCEDURE .......................................... 20
4.1 Broad Issues .......................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Elastic Characterisation ................................................................................................ 23
4.2.1 Isotropic or Anisotropic Characterisation? ...................................................... 23
4.2.2 Values for Poisson’s Ratios ............................................................................ 25
4.2.3 Relationship between Subgrade Modulus and CBR....................................... 25
4.2.4 Typical Modulus Values.................................................................................. 26
4.2.5 Stress Regimes for Triaxial Testing of Granular Materials ............................. 26
4.2.6 Sublayering of Granular Materials and Assignment of Moduli ........................ 27
4.2.7 Modulus of Top Sublayer of Granular Material ............................................... 27
4.2.8 Modulus of Granular Material Overlying a Cemented Layer........................... 28
4.2.9 Relationships between Modulus and UCS for Cemented Materials. .............. 28
4.2.10 Characterisation of Cracked Cemented Materials .......................................... 29
4.3 Performance Relationships........................................................................................... 29
4.3.1 Subgrade Strain Criterion ............................................................................... 29
4.3.2 Fatigue Cracking of Cemented Material ......................................................... 32
4.3.3 Fatigue Relationship for Asphalt..................................................................... 35
4.4 Design Traffic .......................................................................................................... 35
4.4.1 Axle Loads Which Cause Equal Damage ....................................................... 35
4.4.2 Derivation of ‘Standard Axle (or Traffic) Factors’ ............................................ 37
4.4.3 Cumulative Growth Factor for Estimation of Design Traffic ............................ 41
4.5 Incorporation of Location-Specific Temperature Regime ............................................. 42
5 DEVELOPMENT OF OVERLAY DESIGN PROCEDURE ........................................... 43
5.1 Design Deflection Curves ............................................................................................. 43
5.1.1 Adoption of IGPTD Curve 1 ............................................................................ 44
5.1.2 Adoption of IGPTD Curve 4 ............................................................................ 45
5.2 The Curvature Function ................................................................................................ 45
5.3 Temperature Correction for Deflection and Curvature.................................................. 46
Austroads 2008
— i . iii —
5.4 Reduction in Deflection Parameters due to Overlay Placement................................... 48

5.4.1 Reduction in Maximum Deflection due to a Granular Overlay ........................ 48
5.4.2 Reduction in Maximum Deflection (at 25°C) due to an Asphalt Overlay......... 49
5.4.3 Reduction in Curvature Function due to an Asphalt Overlay .......................... 49
5.5 Adjustment of Asphalt Overlay Thickness to Allow for Locality Temperature.............. 49
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX A ORIGINS OF UNBOUND GRANULAR THICKNESS CHART ........ 58
APPENDIX B DMR NSW PROCEDURE FOR PAVEMENT THICKNESS
DESIGN IN 1947 – EXCERPT FROM BRITTON (1947).................. 67
APPENDIX C THE ORIGINS OF DESIGN DEFLECTION CURVES –
EXCERPT FROM JAMESON (1996) ............................................... 71
Austroads 2008
— i . iv —
TABLES
Table 2.1: Methodology and rationale for procedures in IGPTD ....................................... 5
Table 2.2: Revision of IGPTD – initial proposal ............................................................... 10
Table 4.1: Distribution of axle group type by state/territory ............................................. 37
Table 4.2: RORVL load distributions on axle groups according to axle group type......... 39
Table 4.3: Number of standard axles for same distress as axle groups with (non-
rounded) load distributions ............................................................................. 41
FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Presumed CRB, Victoria thickness design chart ............................................ 14
Figure 3.2: Plot of roughness/initial roughness against cumulative ESAs for
‘standard’ design ESAs of 105, 106 and 107 (based on procedure F1
thickness correction factors) ........................................................................... 19
Figure 5.1: Predictive ability of deflection parameters ...................................................... 47
Austroads 2008
— i.v —
1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter records the work undertaken in the development of Pavement Design – A Guide to
the Structural Design of Road Pavements, initially published by the National Association of
Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) in 1987 and subsequently revised and re-issued by
Austroads in 1992. It briefly describes the predecessor and progenitor – the Interim Guide to
Pavement Thickness Design (NAASRA 1979) – and then proceeds to review the technical issues
encountered and the solutions adopted in the formulation of the Guide.
This report does not address the origins of Chapter 9 of the 1992 Guide – the Design of Rigid
Pavements – which is be the subject of a separate chapter in this document.
The technical basis of the 2004 Guide is also the subject of Chapter 3 in this report.
Austroads 2008
— 1.1 —
2 SETTING THE SCENE

2.1 The Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design
The first document relating to pavement design to be produced conjointly by Australian road
authorities was the Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design – known by its acronym IGPTD.
The document was produced by the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities
(NAASRA), the (then) umbrella organisation of the Australian State Road Authorities (SRAs). It
was drafted by a sub-committee of NAASRA’s Materials Engineering Committee (MEC) and vetted
prior to publication by its Principal Technical Committee (PTC).
In 1975, a recommendation by the NAASRA Materials Engineering Committee (MEC) resulted in a

direction from the Principal Technical Committee (PTC), at its 45th (September 1975) meeting, that
a manual on pavement thickness design be prepared and that a Sub-Committee of MEC be
formed to pursue that task, with the manual to be vetted by PTC prior to its publication. The
members of the Sub-Committee were:
Alan Leask Department of Main Roads, NSW (DMR, NSW), Convenor

Peter Lowe Country Roads Board, Victoria (CRB, Vic.)
Ray Elliott Department of Construction (DoC)
Zandor (Vlas) Vlasic Main Roads Department, Qld (MRD, Qld)
Lester Goodram Main Roads Department, WA (MRD, WA)
John Scala Australian Road Research Board (ARRB)
The initiation of the project was possibly stimulated by the attendance of John Scala, Vlas Vlasic,
Len Chester (Highways Department, SA (HD, SA)) and Alan Leask at the Fourth International
Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, which was held in London in 1972. In
addition, there was an increasing desire by the MEC members for increased national cooperation
and the achievement of a uniform national approach on the subject.
As instigator and Chairman of the project, Alan Leask was considered to be the driving force
behind the development of the IGPTD. However, all MEC members provided full support.
In formulating the sections on flexible and semi-rigid pavements, the Sub-Committee members
drew particularly on the research conducted by John Scala, while Ray Elliott contributed
substantially to the section on rigid pavements. Meetings were frequent, usually lasting about four
days at a time, and, as the Sub-Committee reported to MEC, input from other members of MEC
was also significant. Moreover, as time went by there were changes in the composition of MEC
and the Sub-Committee. Other participants who made valuable contributions to the refinement of
the document included Len Chester, Eric Brown (DoC), Ralph Rallings (Department of Main
Roads, Tasmania (DMR, Tas)), Rod Payze (HD, SA), Peter Rufford (DMR, NSW) and Ed Haber
(DMR, NSW).
In principle it was postulated that an ideal pavement design procedure should be one which would
predict a thickness and composition which, without being conservative, would ensure that the
pavement would not deteriorate beyond a tolerable level of serviceability in less than the chosen
design period. In practice, this would facilitate the planning of a maintenance and rehabilitation
regime commensurate with the selected design period, and thus would permit the comparison of
designs comprised of different compositions on the basis of total whole-of-life costs, as distinct
from initial cost only.
Austroads 2008
— 1.2 —
The August 1978 draft was considered by the 33rd (September 1978) MEC, which agreed that the
document would be ready for publication after some editorial and technical amendments, which
had been agreed to at the meeting, were made. The document was then forwarded to PTC
seeking their approval to publish.
Although the document records 1979 as its publication date (the Foreword is dated April 1979), it
was mid-1980 before it was released – and then only on a very restricted basis. Individual copies
were numbered and it was not available for sale. The reason for this approach may be found in
the following sentence in the Foreword:
It is stressed that the document is interim in nature and that it is proposed that it be
reviewed after about two years, in the light of comments received, experience
obtained and further research.
Prior to its release, NAASRA PTC had taken a formal decision to review the status of the
document before 1982. Had the decision to publish, albeit with this proviso, not been taken, then it
is doubtful whether another attempt would have been made for a considerable period of time. In
this regard, the attitude was taken that the document, though admittedly lacking in many respects,
had to be exposed in order to ensure that feedback was obtained and that further research was
conducted to ensure that the necessary knowledge was acquired to allow these refinements to
take place.
The design systems included in the IGPTD were initially based on the approaches adopted by the
various SRAs. However, the compilation process involved a considerable amount of definition,
interpretation, rationalisation, compromise and innovation. Because the document was intended to
be applicable over the whole of Australia, involving diverse materials and environments, and
because it might be used by other organisations having varying degrees of expertise and
resources, some parts were deliberately broadly based in order to allow a hierarchical approach to
be taken to the evaluation of the input parameters and the design procedures.
The task of compiling the IGPTD was enlightening in that it emphasised the inadequacies of the
traditional systems, particularly with respect to pavements incorporating bound layers. Of special
concern was the paucity of performance-related data substantiating the criteria used, and the lack
of guidance regarding the evaluation of the parameters required in the thickness design process.
By the same token, it was emphasised that there was little alternative than to implement newer
methods, some of which were innovative and which would need refinement when compatible
performance data became available.
Identification of the deficiencies which inhibited the unqualified implementation of the IGPTD did
stimulate awareness of the need for more precise criteria and data, and resulted in a number of
research projects.
2.1.1 Format of the IGPTD

The format of the IGPTD was as follows:
Part 1 Information on factors affecting pavement design and performance
Part 2 Flexible pavement design procedures
Part 3 Rigid pavement design procedures
Part 4 Summary providing all the necessary information to carry out a design
Austroads 2008
— 1.3 —
Whilst the detailing of the procedures for the design of the various types of pavement described
was a primary objective of the Guide, another significant feature of the document was related to
the definition of the factors affecting the design procedures, especially the elaboration, in
considerable detail, on the appraisal, in quantitative terms, of the evaluation of subgrade strength,
traffic loading, etc.
For the design of new flexible pavements, the following four procedures were developed:
F1: Granular pavement with thin (< 25 mm) bituminous surfacing
F2: Granular pavement with asphalt surfacing up to 100 mm
F3A: Pavement containing a bound layer or with asphalt > 100 mm (see below)
F3B: Pavement containing a bound layer or with asphalt > 100 mm (see below)
In addition, the following procedures were developed for the design of overlays and rigid
pavements:
F4: Overlay design
R1: Rigid pavement design
R2: Rigid pavement design
Table 2.1 (after Potter 1981) lists, for procedures F1 to F4, the essential steps, together with a note
on the rationale behind each step.
The core of procedure F1 was the (now) familiar CBR-thickness-traffic chart. Its development is
discussed in detail later.
The basis of procedure F2 was estimation of the candidate pavement’s maximum deflection (from
a quasi-elastic analysis), this being checked against a specified tolerable value which was a
function of both asphalt thickness and design traffic.
In the context of this brief overview of the design procedures, discussion of procedure F3B logically
precedes discussion of procedure F3A. Procedure F3B involved determining, firstly, the required
thickness of granular cover (from procedure F1) and then substituting asphalt and/or cemented
material for the granular material on the basis of a table of layer equivalencies (thicknesses of
granular material equivalent to unit thickness of the bound material). For asphalt, the layer
equivalence depended on the climatic zone, design traffic, and depth below the surface. For
cemented material, it depended only on depth below the surface1.
1
With the load equivalence value being dependent on the depth below the surface, the issue that has never
been clear to the author is does this depth below the surface refer to the depth within the granular pavement
where the granular material is being replaced, or does it refer to the depth at which the substituted material
finds itself in the final pavement configuration? The different interpretations result, in some situations, in non-
trivial differences in final configurations (e.g. 265 mm cf. 300 mm for full-depth asphalt – enough to be
significant in alternate tender situations).
Austroads 2008
— 1.4 —
Procedure F3A contained elements of both F1 and F2. The first step was to determine (using
procedure F1) the total (granular) cover requirement. Tentative thicknesses were then assigned to
each layer in the desired configuration. A check was then made, for each granular layer in this
tentative structure, to ensure that there was sufficient Thickness of cover over it (regardless of type
of cover) – the requirement being that specified in F1. Layer thicknesses were adjusted (if
necessary) to satisfy this requirement. A full elastic layer analysis was then carried out on the
pavement to estimate its maximum deflection under a Standard Axle.
Table 2.1: Methodology and rationale for procedures in IGPTD

Procedure Method Rationale
F1 Determine subgrade design CBR
Estimate cumulative traffic over design life in terms of ESAs AASHO Road Test (relative damage)
ERVL Study (Stevenson 1976)
(axle vehicle loads)
Determine thickness of cover (T) required for subgrade condition and California Highways Department (Porter 1938)
estimated traffic TRRL, SRA experience
Modify T for desired terminal roughness Scala (1977); (AASHO Road Test data)
Check minimum base requirement SRA experience
F2 Determine thickness of cover using F1
Determine pavement stiffness factor Limited modular ratio of adjacent layers
(Heukelom and Klomp 1962)
Determine deflection under a Standard Axle Elastic layer theory
Reduce deflection by 5% for each 25 mm of AC surfacing SRA experience, Scala (1973)
Check reduced deflection against tolerable deflection SRA experience; Scala (1973)
F3A Determine thickness of cover (T) using F1 See procedure F1
Select a pavement composition having total thickness T –
Adjust pavement layer thicknesses to satisfy cover requirements (from F1) –
for each unbound layer
Assign values to elastic parameters (Young’s modulus, Poisson’s Ratio) Laboratory, field investigations
for each layer
Estimate deflection under a Standard Axle Elastic layer theory
Check estimated deflection against tolerable deflection and, if less, reduce SRA experience; Scala (1973)
thickness of bound layers
F3B Determine thickness of cover (T) using F1 or F2 (as appropriate) See procedures F1, F2
Determine individual layer thicknesses (ti) from suggested layer
equivalencies (ai) and relationship: T = Σ ai ti
F4 Determine representative deflection under a Standard Axle
Estimate traffic over design life in ESAs AASHO Road Test (relative damage)
ERVL Study (Stevenson 1976)
(axle vehicle loads)
Check representative deflection, dREP, against tolerable deflection, dTOL SRA experience; Scala (1973)
If dREP < dTOL, adopt nominal overlay –
If dREP > dTOL, design structural overlay –
For granular overlay, determine thickness on the basis of a 10% deflection SRA experience
reduction for each 45 mm of overlay material
For AC overlay, determine thickness using recommended percentage SRA experience
reduction in deflection per 25 mm for the specific climate zone
Austroads 2008
— 1.5 —
The use of CIRCLY (Wardle 1977) was recommended for this analysis, provided adequate
computer facilities were available. Otherwise, the use of the 2-layer or 3-layer tables developed by
CSIRO (Gerrard 1969; Gerrard and Wardle 1976) was recommended. The estimated deflection
was assessed against a specified maximum tolerable value – which was a function of pavement
composition and design traffic. The thickness of the bound layer was then adjusted (down) and the
maximum deflection re-calculated until the requirement was (just) satisfied.
The interim nature of the IGPTD is well attested by the qualifying comments within the document
regarding the use of procedure F3A. In introducing the alternative design procedures F3A and
F3B, the document includes the following text (under the heading ‘Qualification’):
Procedure F3A is suggested as a method which can be developed to satisfy the
need for a completely satisfactory means of selecting the thickness of a flexible
pavement, the composition of which includes one or more layers of bound
materials. The basis of the procedure is a comparison between the surface
deflection of a proposed pavement with the deflection that is assumed to be
indicative of the pavement capacity to produce the design performance. This
‘tolerable deflection’ is recommended on the basis of the recorded performance of
similar pavements. The deflection of the proposed pavement is estimated by an
elastic analysis of its behaviour under the action of a standard wheel load.
The present recommended values of tolerable deflection are based on the best
information currently available for Australian conditions. However, whilst they are
considered adequate as a secondary control over a primary design criterion, e.g.
subgrade CBR, they cannot be regarded as sufficiently well established to warrant
their acceptance as a single or primary basis for design. Thus, Procedure F3A, in
its present state of development, is recommended only as a conservative control
over those methods currently used, i.e. the substitution of bound for unbound
materials on the basis of empirically established equivalency factors. Such a
comparative use will encourage the accumulation of performance data which can
be expected to improve the accuracy of the method to a stage at which it provides
an acceptable degree of confidence in the ability of the selected pavement to
perform as designed.
The specific introduction to procedure F3B includes the following text:

The use of Procedure F3A is inhibited at the present time principally by the
difficulties of determining the appropriate values of moduli and also, by the current
lack of verification of the proposed tolerable deflection criteria. As an interim
measure, these restrictions are avoided in practice by the use of empirical
equivalency factors.
Procedure F3A was, in essence, (what is now called) a mechanistic design procedure. It involved
the use of a Response Model (CIRCLY or tables) to determine a single critical response (maximum
surface deflection) of the candidate pavement to Standard Axle loading. The performance of the
candidate pavement was estimated from the (configuration-dependent) plot of tolerable maximum
deflection versus cumulative traffic (ESAs). The IGPTD recognised the relevance of the maximum
values of both vertical strain at the top of the subgrade and horizontal strain at the bottom of bound
layers. However, it stated that:
…limiting values for these critical design criteria are not well established for
Australian conditions, and it would be inappropriate to adopt overseas criteria
without verification. Moreover, these particular criteria are difficult to measure and
it is unlikely that they would be monitored against pavement performance in order
to establish such relationships.
Austroads 2008
— 1.6 —
In support of maximum surface deflection as an estimator of horizontal tensile strain at the bottom
of a bound layer, it made the following statement:
…limited performance data from the ARRB and some state road authorities has
indicated that the vertical surface deflection provides a reasonable premise for
design in most practical situations. It is considered that a limiting vertical surface
deflection criterion does, for all practical purposes, control tensile strain at the
bottom of a layer. This is because the tensile strain is governed by the radius of
curvature of the deflection bowl on loading which has been shown, for a given
pavement material and thickness, to correlate reasonably well with the maximum
surface deflection.
It also stated:
The further advantage of the vertical surface deflection criterion is that it is easily
measured in the field and is, therefore, more suitable for verification of the design
procedure than would be other criteria.
With respect to the vertical strain on the top of the subgrade, the document states that, to inhibit
loss of surface shape and ancillary surface cracking:
It is, therefore, essential to limit the subgrade deformation and this is achieved by
limiting the vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade. It should be
noted in this regard that such an approach supports the rationale of the CBR
method of design, which, by requiring a minimum thickness of cover over any
material (characterised by its CBR value) at a given level in the pavement, directly
ensures that the vertical compressive strain at the level does not exceed an
implicitly defined acceptable value.
It further states that:

...as discussed above, if the design procedure also satisfies CBR design thickness
requirements, it provides a basis for controlling vertical compressive strain in the
subgrade.
The overlay design procedures (F4) involved calculating the thickness of overlay required to
reduce the representative deflection of the section to a tolerable level. In the case of a granular
overlay (unbound), the thickness required was based on each 45 mm thickness of overlay reducing
the representative deflection by 10%. The reduction in surface deflection for a given thickness of
asphalt overlay is dependent, among other things, on the operating temperature of the material in
place. As this varies according to climatic conditions, five separate deflection reduction factors
were presented, ranging from 12% in the coldest climatic zone to 6% in the warmest. Since the
tolerable deflection also decreases as the thickness of asphalt overlay increases, an iterative
process was used to estimate the thickness required to reduce the representative deflection to a
sufficient extent.
Austroads 2008
— 1.7 —
The procedures for rigid pavement design, R1 and R2, were virtually the same as those adopted
by the US Portland Cement Association (PCA). The R1 procedure was appropriate when the
quality of the traffic data was such that both axle type and load distribution, and the number of
repetitions of each axle/load combination, could be predicted. The procedure was based on the
fatigue concept, in that it was assumed that, as the flexural stress ratio (ratio of flexural stress
caused by the wheel load to the concrete design flexural strength) decreases, then the number of
load repetitions to failure increases. When the stress ratio was less than 0.5 it was assumed that
the concrete could sustain unlimited stress repetitions without loss of load-carrying ability.
Conversely, at high stress ratios, only a limited number of the heavier loads could be sustained
before the concrete failed. Therefore it was essential that projected traffic estimates, especially
with respect to the mass and numbers of heavier axle loads, were reliable, since these virtually
controlled the pavement thickness design.
The more common rigid pavement design procedure, R2, was used when the total traffic
composition could not be predicted and the loading had to be estimated based on the number of
commercial vehicles. The procedure was derived from procedure R1 by utilising data from the
NAASRA (1976) Economics of Road Vehicle Limits (ERVL) study. The effect of traffic was
accounted for by calculating the thickness of concrete required for unlimited stress applications of
the most critical axle type at its design load, and then reducing that thickness to account for the
expected number of repetitions of the design axle load, which was assumed to be a fixed
proportion – about one design axle per 1000 commercial vehicles – of the total commercial vehicle
traffic. The effect of concrete strength and subgrade support on pavement thickness was
accounted for by applying suggested percentage variations in pavement thickness.
Details of reinforcing and jointing techniques applicable to both procedures were also included in
the IGPTD.
2.1.2 Release of the IGPTD

The IGPTD was launched at a two-day NAASRA/ARRB Seminar on Heavily-Trafficked Flexible
Pavements, held at ARRB in June 1980. (The document was actually released three weeks after
the launch). Attendance was strictly by invitation only.
Austroads 2008
— 1.8 —
Of the 54 delegates, the only non-SRA/ARRB attendees were as follows:

R. Brewis, K. Kiesel Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (AAPA)
H. Luckhurst-Smith, J. Sutton Shell Company of Australia Ltd
R. Elliott Cement & Concrete Association of Australia
B. Heaton University of Newcastle
I Lee University of New South Wales
J Morgan Golder Associates
R Sharp University of Sydney
K. Wallace James Cook University of North Queensland
It is of interest to note (in light of subsequent developments) that the following all participated
actively in the seminar (presentation of papers, chairing of syndicate sessions, panel discussion,
etc.): Alan Leask, Peter Lowe, John Bethune, David Anderson, Ron Gordon, David Potter and
Geoff Youdale. Jack Morgan, in his concluding remarks, made the following statement:
I believe this Guide is a document that we can justifiably be proud of as an
Australian product. There are many sound and even innovative approaches
described, and when we recognise that this forms a consensus of SRA thought on
this topic there must be high hopes that the standard of pavement design will
continue to improve. There is obviously work to be done in filling in the blanks, and
even deleting some material I believe to be now of only historical interest.
However the Guide provides a framework for collecting information and highlighting
significant areas of needed research.
In commenting on Geoff Youdale’s excellent paper summarising the (then) state-of-the-art of

repeated load testing of pavement materials (Youdale 1981), Morgan stated:
Some 15 years ago academics were trying to promote repeated load testing to the
SRAs. Now at least one SRA has taken it up and who knows but in another 15
years the results may even be used!
Very prescient of him!
The Seminar Proceedings were printed some 10 months later (Sparks 1981), with availability being
restricted to SRAs and Seminar attendees. The delay in printing the Proceedings was probably
attributable to the usual delay in collating written reports from syndicate Chairmen, etc., coupled
with concerns about ‘the sensitive nature of some of the data presented’ – presumably an allusion
to the (then) recent significant pavement failures. The reasons behind the delay in releasing the
IGPTD are not fully clear. However, it is understood that AAPA (represented by Ken McKenzie,
Ollie O’Flynn, Ron Ekberg, etc.) had serious concerns about the layer equivalency values for
asphalt incorporated in procedure F3B, and expressed their concerns to NAASRA.
2.2 Establishment of a Working Group to Revise the IGPTD

The initial steps taken to institute a revision of the IGPTD were as follows:
In March 1981, NAASRA MEC decided to submit to PTC a detailed proposal recommending
that revision of the IGPTD commence in 1982.
In August 1981, a Sub-Committee of MEC met and formulated the detailed proposal which
was subsequently submitted to PTC. The author attended the meeting by invitation. It is of
interest to note MEC’s initial intentions. Table 2.2 presents the proposed layout of the
revised IGPTD, together with the (proposed) responsible individual(s).
The Working Group which was proposed to undertake the components requiring major
revision comprised:
Austroads 2008
— 1.9 —
David Potter ARRB (Convenor)

David Anderson CRB, Victoria
Ron Gordon MRD, Queensland
Geoff Youdale DMR, NSW
Gavin Donald (DMR, NSW) was to undertake overall editing.
The September 1981 meeting of the PTC approved the proposal.
The Working Group met for the first time in December 1981.
Table 2.2: Revision of IGPTD – initial proposal

Proposed Format Extent of Revision Person(s) Responsible
1. Introduction Total re-write R Payze
2. Scope Total re-write R Payze
3. Terminology Total re-write A Leask
4. Choice of pavement type Total re-write L Goodram
5. Basis for design Total re-write P Lowe
6. Evaluation of design parameters
(a) moisture Total re-write R Payze
(b) subgrade CBR Total re-write R Payze
(c) subgrade modulus Total re-write R Payze
(d) pavement materials Major revision Working Group
(e) traffic Total re-write R Payze
(f) evaluation for rehabilitation Total re-write R Payze
7. Design procedures for flexible pavements
F1 Total re-write Working Group
F2 Major revision Working Group
F3 To Total re-write Working Group
8. Design procedure for rigid pavements Total re-write A Leask
supported by
E Haber, J Cruickshank, R Elliott
9. Design Procedures for Overlays major revision Working Group
10. Observations Total re-write P Lowe
In broad terms, the scope of the task assigned to the WG may be summarised as follows:
for the design of chip-sealed granular pavements, retain procedure F1 (in the IGPTD), i.e.
the CBR – Thickness – Traffic of cover chart.
for the design of other flexible pavements, devise a mechanistic procedure consistent with
the F1 procedure
for the design of overlays, devise a procedure consistent with the above two procedures for
new pavements.
Alan Leask was retained as Convenor of the review Steering Committee and remained so until his
retirement from MEC in 1983. He was followed as Convenor by Peter Lowe and then by Gavin
Donald, who undertook the final editing.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 10 —
2.2.1 A Guide – not a Manual

The decision to title the revised document a Guide (consistent with the original IGPTD) rather than
a Manual reflected the policy of (the then) NAASRA to foster among its members harmonisation of
standards, practices, etc. rather than foisting upon the members sets of mandatory rules. Its
replacement, Austroads, pursues a similar policy. Further, the intent of the document was to
guide, educate, and provide assistance in deciding among alternative options, etc.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 11 —
3 GRANULAR PAVEMENTS WITH THIN BITUMINOUS

SURFACINGS
3.1 Origins of the CBR-Thickness-Traffic Chart
The WG was directed to retain the CBR-Thickness-Traffic chart for design of chip-sealed granular
pavements because it was the consensus view of pavement designers at that time (early 1980s)
that pavements designed in accordance with it provided field performance consistent with design
expectations. Because it was retained in the 1992 edition of the Guide (as Figure 8.4) and
because it constitutes a foundation stone for the mechanistic procedure in the Guide, a review of
its origins is considered appropriate.
Within Australia, the (then) Country Roads Board of Victoria (CRB) led the way in the development
of thickness design for flexible pavements. Hence, following the developments within the CRB
provides an appreciation of the Australian scene.
Jameson (1996) has produced a most adequate review based predominantly on material
assembled by the author. The following comments are supplementary to Jameson’s review and
need to be read in conjunction with it. It is attached as Appendix A. The interested reader is also
referred to an earlier review by Anderson of the evolution of pavement design within the CRB
(Anderson 1981).
The appropriate ‘starting point’ can be considered to be Porter’s development of the (laboratory)
CBR test (Porter 1938). Using this test to characterise subgrades, the California State Highway
Department, in reviewing the performance of its roads over the period 1929-1938, found that soil
having a certain CBR always required the same thickness of flexible macadam construction on top
of it in order to prevent plastic deformation of the soil (Davis 1949). The curve relating the required
thickness of flexible macadam to subgrade CBR is that labelled ‘7000-lb. wheel load (Light Traffic)’
in Jameson’s Figure 2 (the curve was originally unlabelled). Davis goes on to state that:
The curve for the wheel load of 12,000 lb. was added later as the result of further
experience in California of heavier traffic conditions subsequent to 1938. The
curve for the wheel load of 9,000 lb. has been obtained by interpolation between
the curves for the wheel loads of 7000 and 12,000 lb. It is an implied assumption
of these curves that all kinds of flexible construction of the macadam type spread
the load to approximately the same extent.
Hence, the first CBR design chart was the single (uppermost) curve in Jameson’s Figure 2 (see
Appendix A). It is to be noted that the CBR value refers to the subgrade only and that the material
to provide the thickness of cover is a flexible macadam. The Figure covers subgrade strengths up
to CBR 80, requiring approximately 3 inches (75 mm) of cover on the CBR 80 subgrade.
Having monitored the rapid developments in California post 1942, the CRB released Jameson’s
Figure 3 (CRB 1945). The most spectacular progression was in traffic characterisation. From the
1942 characterisation of traffic in terms of a maximum wheel load with unspecified repetitions, by
1945 it was characterised by the two-way cumulative number of repetitions over the design period
of equivalent 5000 lb wheel loads2.
2
For a wheel load of L lb, one repetition was equivalent to 2(L–5000) repetitions of a 5000 lb wheel load. This
corresponds to a ‘Power Law’ exponent in the range 3.8-4.7.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 12 —
The factors taken into account in estimating cumulative traffic were:
day(s) of the week on which the relevant survey was conducted (every day had a different
weighting)
pavement width (to account for transverse distribution),
growth rate
design period
climatic factor (a multiplier whose value was average rainfall (inches) x average wet days per
year ÷ 10,000).
The Figure covers subgrade strengths up to CBR 80 (as previously), with no cover required on the
CBR 80 subgrade (cf. 3 inches (75 mm) previously).3
However, by 1949, with the release of its Technical Bulletin No. 4 (CRB 1949), characterisation of
traffic for conventional design situations had reverted to 1.5 times the average number of trucks
and buses (in both directions) in a 12-hour day count – essentially average daily commercial
vehicles. For unusual traffic situations the 1945 approach was retained. Technical Bulletin No. 4
also introduced estimation of (laboratory soaked) CBR from gradings, Atterberg Limits and Linear
Shrinkage. The design chart provided for subgrade strengths up to CBR 20 (c.f. 80 previously),
with a minimum cover requirement of (approx.) 3 inches (75 mm).
Ten years after the release of Technical Bulletin No. 4, H.P. George (CRB) and C.A. Gittoes (DMR,
NSW) included in their report to the 1959 PIARC Congress (George and Gittoes 1959) a thickness
design chart in a format very similar to the one currently in the Guide – except that design traffic
was expressed as repetitions of a 5,000 lb wheel load, as shown in Figure 3.1. Hence, despite the
issue of Technical Bulletin No. 4, some interest remained in the characterisation of traffic in terms
of cumulative repetitions of a standard loading.
At this same PIARC Congress, MacLean (1959) presented Jameson’s Figure 5 as the then status
within the UK. The UK development work behind this chart is well described by Jameson.
Subsequent to the Congress, CRB rapidly embraced the thickness design chart presented by
MacLean, issuing it in Technical Bulletin No. 21 in the following year (CRB 1960).
The chart is a series of curves providing required depth of construction according to subgrade CBR
for seven ranges of daily traffic – daily traffic being determined as per Technical Bulletin No. 4
except that the vehicles to be counted changed from ‘trucks and buses’ to ‘vehicles exceeding 3
tons loaded weight’. As Jameson notes, the three curves for mid-range traffic align well with
California’s original three curves (for wheel loads of 7000, 9000 and 12,000 lb). The chart covers
subgrade strengths up to CBR 150 (c.f. 20 previously) and indicates a minimum cover requirement
of 2 inches (50 mm). However, in the text the minimum thickness requirement (of CBR > 80
material) is stipulated to be from 3 inches to 8 inches (75 mm to 200 mm), depending on the traffic
classification (no minimum thickness requirement was specified for the highest traffic classification
– presumably an oversight). Technical Bulletin No. 21 also saw the introduction of the static and
dynamic cone as a basis for estimating subgrade CBR.
3
For the reader who is interested in where the (then) DMR, NSW stood in relation to pavement thickness
design at about this time, its procedure current in 1947 is attached as Appendix B. It is an extract from a
paper by A.T. (Sandy) Britton to the 1947 Meeting of the Highway Research Board (HRB) (Britton 1947).
The pavement design was primarily based on classification testing of the subgrade and pavement materials.
This was supplemented by utilising in situ CBR tests and CBR tests on samples conditioned to predicted
moisture conditions in the 1960s.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 13 —
In 1969, CRB issued Technical Bulletin No. 26, which superseded Technical Bulletin No. 21. The
curves were re-drawn to reflect these minimum thickness requirements, while retaining coverage of
subgrade strength up to CBR 150. An additional curve was added for unsealed shoulders. For
traffic determination, the multiplier applied to the 12-hour count data increased from 1.5 (Technical
Bulletins Nos. 4 and 21) to 3, i.e. design traffic was doubled for the same project traffic.
Source: (George and Gittoes 1959)
Figure 3.1: Presumed CRB, Victoria thickness design chart
The CBR-thickness-traffic chart for granular pavements with chip seals in Technical Bulletin No. 26
(Jameson’s Figure 6), together with similar charts then in use in other SRAs, provided the basis for
the chart presented (as Figure 2.2) in the IGPTD (Jameson’s Figure 7). According to Black (1977),
the traffic classifications in Technical Bulletin No.26 (daily two-way volumes of vehicles exceeding
3 tons loaded weight) were converted to cumulative one-way ESAs over the design period on the
following basis:
.....the following assumptions were made:
(i) One commercial vehicle equalled one equivalent standard axle.
(ii) The traffic was equally divided between the two directions.
(iii) A design period of 20 years was adopted.
(iv) The commercial vehicle traffic category was characterised by the average
commercial traffic volume in the category and this was taken as the average value
over the design period.
Jameson’s interpretation – that the daily traffic volumes were considered to be end-of-life volumes
after 3% per annum growth – appears to be an over-complication of what actually transpired.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 14 —
Table 2.11 of the IGPTD lists the number of ESAs per commercial vehicle (according to State and
Road Functional Class) which was recommended for use at the time. The Table entries were
derived from the (1974) ERVL Survey data. For Victoria, the values were 1.4, 0.8, 1.2, 0.7 and 0.8
for Functional Classes 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 respectively. Taken across all States, the Table suggests
that (rough) average values for rural and urban roads are 1.2 and 0.8 respectively. Hence, the
value of 1 adopted for the translation is a ‘good average value’.
It is the author’s recollection that the formula attached to the IGPTD chart is not in exact agreement
with the chart, i.e. the chart was established prior to, and independent of, the formula.
3.1.1 Quality of Pavement Material and its Cover Requirements

During the course of evolution, later versions of the thickness design chart included cover
requirements, not only over the subgrade, but also over any placed material (the cover requirement
being determined inter alia by the CBR of the placed material).
With regard to the evolution of quality requirements for cover material, Davis’ comment on the early
California curves that ‘It is an implied assumption of these curves that all kinds of flexible
construction of the macadam type spread the load to approximately the same extent’ has already
been noted.
The Road Research Laboratory (1955) Road Note 20 characterises both subbase and base
material by their CBR values, with base material having a CBR > 80 and the maximum contribution
of a subbase to the subgrade cover requirement being the subgrade cover requirement minus the
subbase cover requirement. Hence, the Leigh and Croney (1972) statement quoted by Jameson
that the design curves
....provided a means for estimating the total thickness of construction necessary for
various traffic and foundation conditions, but gave no guidance on the relative
thicknesses of surfacing, base and subbase.
is somewhat unfair to Road Note 20.
In Technical Bulletin No. 21, materials were allotted a ‘Design CBR’ value. With the exception of
fine crushed rock and macadam (both allotted CBR values of 100), a material was allotted – on the
basis of its grading and PI – a CBR value (in the range 3-50) and also a minimum cover
requirement over itself (independent of design traffic).
The minimum thickness of CBR > 80 material has already been noted. The Bulletin states that the
Design CBR values should be used in the pavement design, presumably in the (now) conventional
manner.
Technical Bulletin No. 26 states that:

The pavement itself should be made up of materials increasing in strength and
stability towards the top. Where the California Bearing Ratio of the pavement
material is known the chart provides a guide to the depth at which the material may
be used but other factors such as grading and plasticity index may be more
important than the actual California Bearing Ratio.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 15 —
However, further on it states that:

‘Where the local materials are cheap but of poor quality they should be used in
substantial thicknesses since:- (i) While the CBR design method makes no specific
allowance for the quality of the pavement material, the design curves may be
considered as based on average quality materials. The ability of the poorer
materials to spread the load onto the subgrade will be less than for good materials.’
The IGPTD is most specific and unambiguous. It states in Section 2.1.4 that:
The total thickness of a granular pavement may be made up of a base and any
number of subbases. The composition of the pavement is made up by providing
sufficient cover over the subgrade and each successive subbase. The thickness of
cover required over a subbase is determined from its design CBR. If this CBR
value is less than 30, the cover required is determined as for a subgrade material,
namely from Fig. 2.2 or Equation 2.1. For a subbase with a design CBR greater
than 30, it is necessary to provide a minimum thickness of a base material with a
CBR of 80 or above.
3.1.2 Concluding Comments

It is worthy of note that, during the development described above, essentially the only finding from
the (1959-61) AASHO Road Test which was ‘picked up’ was the adoption (in 1979 by the IGPTD)
of the ESA as a basis for quantification of traffic loading. This provided no conceptual advance
over California’s in-place use of the 5000 lb wheel load coupled with its basis for determining
‘equivalent repetitions’ for different load magnitudes. The (probable) refinement was the adoption
of a ‘Damage Exponent’ of 4 derived by Irick and Hudson (1964) subsequent to the AASHO Road
Test4.
The main advantage of a review of this nature is that it assists in ‘getting things into perspective’.
As with any investigation relating to the performance of roads, one comes away feeling
disappointed at the abysmal lack of performance data (except at the macroscopic level).
Although the CBR design method has been in use for over 50 years, there are still misconceptions
of the philosophy and intent of the procedure. For example, Rodway (1997), in an overview of
mechanistic pavement design, makes the following statements in relation to the method:
The CBR design method is based on a failure mode that involves loss of shape of the
pavement surface caused by overstressing the subgrade.
The empirical CBR method implies that loss of surface shape is primarily caused by
overstressing the subgrade. Deformation within the pavement layers is not directly
addressed by the method.
The CBR design procedure involves increasing pavement life by increasing pavement
thickness to further protect the subgrade, not by improving the pavement materials.
It needs to be clearly understood that the CBR design procedure requires inter alia that:
the uppermost material be of (relatively) high quality and of thickness in excess of a specified
minimum
a minimum thickness of cover be provided over each of the other materials comprising the
pavement, with this minimum thickness increasing as material quality decreases
4
While granular pavements with a chip-seal surfacing were incorporated in the design of the AASHO Road
Test and were constructed and trafficked, because of their very rapid failure (attributed to poor construction
coupled with the effects of cyclical freezing and thawing), their performance (to the author’s knowledge) was
not reported.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 16 —
the minimum thickness of uppermost material and minimum thicknesses of cover over the
pavement materials be increased as design traffic increases.
The intents of these requirements are that:
the stresses imposed on each and every material comprising the pavement be contained in
order to limit the development of permanent deformation within the material
the stresses imposed on each material be concomitant with design life requirements.
Hence, it is contended that the above statements do not do sufficient justice to the CBR design
procedure because they do not acknowledge the provisions within the procedure for limiting the
stresses imposed on (and hence the deformations developed within) the constituent pavement
materials.
However, it needs to be borne in mind that, at the time of the development of the procedures, truck
tyre pressures were below 600 kPa. In recent times, pressures of 900 kPa are not uncommon,
leading to considerably increased stress levels within the pavement near the surface. Being
empirically based, the CBR procedure does not have a mechanism for incorporating tyre pressure
as a design variable.
It should also be noted that the CBR test was initially developed as a tool for pavement thickness
design, with a CBR of 100 indicating that a material did not require further cover. The CBR value
has since evolved into many material specifications where it provides an indicator of shear/bearing
strength. As the test involves pushing a plunger into a rigidly-constrained sample, its use for
estimating the shear strength of base materials, particularly those with large particle sizes, is of
limited value.
3.2 Terminal Condition

Implicit in the design procedure for these pavements (Section 8.3 and, specifically, Figure 8.4 of
the Guide) is a terminal condition which is considered to be unacceptable and, hence, signifies the
end of life for the pavement. Quantification of this condition could be expected to be in terms of
level of roughness and severity and extent of rutting.
As noted above, this design procedure was taken across (essentially unaltered) from the IGPTD.
Unfortunately, no statement of terminal condition accompanied it. The view of the MEC Review
Committee at the time was that, in terms of rutting, it probably represented an average rut depth of
about 20 mm. In terms of roughness, the procedure in Section 7.8 of the Guide (which provides a
basis for altering design traffic to achieve a specific terminal roughness) provides some guidance.
This procedure (which was also taken across from the IGPTD) is based on the premise that the
terminal roughness of pavements designed in accordance with Figure 8.4 is three times the initial
roughness. This premise was formulated by John Scala (ARRB) based on inter alia analysis of
performance data from the AAHSO Road Test. There appears to be no record of the development
of it.
3.2.1 Modification of Terminal Condition

For the design of flexible pavements whose critical distress mode is permanent deformation of the
subgrade and granular layers, the use of Figure 7.2 allows the designer to select a pavement
design which has a designer-specified terminal roughness (relative to its initial roughness). To
achieve this, the designer simply enters Figure 7.2 with a value for the Design Traffic and also a
value for the desired ratio of terminal to initial roughness and reads from the Figure a value for
Modified Design Traffic. This value is then used in the design procedure in lieu of the Design
Traffic.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 17 —
The relationship plotted in Figure 7.2 was derived in the following manner.
The IGPTD (Section 2.1.3) provides – for granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacing – a
basis for altering the thickness of cover over the subgrade to achieve a designer-specified terminal
roughness value.
The thickness modification is expressed in the following relationship:
T = t. [2R1/(R2 - R1)]0.25 1
Where
R1 is the expected initial roughness
R2 is the desired terminal roughness
t is the thickness of cover determined from IGPTD Procedure
F1 (Figure 8.4 in the 1992 Guide)
T is the modified thickness of cove
This relationship is the foundation for the relationship in Figure 7.2.
One further piece of information from the IGPTD (Section 2.1.2) which is relevant here is that the
CBR-thickness-traffic relationship in Figure 8.4 of the 1992 Guide is as follows:
T = [219 – 211 (log10CBR) + 58(log10CBR)2]. log10(N/120)
Where
t (mm) is the thickness cover required over a material of given
CBR when the design traffic is N ESAs.
This equation can be rewritten more succinctly as:
t/f(CBR) = log10 (N/120) 2

Where
f(CBR) = 219 – 211(log10CBR) + 58(log10CBR)2
The Modified Design Traffic – denoted by NM – is simply the Design Traffic associated with the
modified thickness of cover T.
Hence, from Equation 2:

T/f(CBR) = log10 (NM/120)
i.e.
log10 (NM/120) = T/f(CBR)
Now, from Equation 1:

T = t.[2R1/(R2 - R1)]0.25
Therefore:
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 18 —
= log10 (NM/120) = [t/f(CBR)] * [2R1/(R2 - R1)]0.25

= [t/f(CBR)] * [2/(R2/R1-1)]0.25
Substituting from Equation 2:

log10 (NM/120) = log10 (N/120) * [2/(R2/R1-1)]0.25 3
0.25 0.25
i.e. log10 NM = [2/(R2/R1-1)] log10N + [1 - [2/(R2/R1-1)] ] * log10120
This is the relationship which is plotted in Figure 7.2 of the 1992 Guide.
3.2.2 Implicit Model for Roughness Progression

It is of interest to note the model for the development of roughness with traffic that is implicit in
Figure 7.2 of the Guide. From Equation 3 above, we have:
log10 (NM/120) = log10 (N/120) * [2/(R2/R1-1)]0.25
Rearranging these terms gives:
(R2/R1-1)/2 = [(log10 (N/120))/ log10 (NM/120))]4

i.e.
R2/R1 = 1 + 2 * [(log10 (N/120))/ log10 (NM/120))]4
This relationship indicates, for a given value of unmodified design traffic (N), how the ratio
roughness/initial roughness increases as cumulative traffic NM increases. Hence, it is a statement
of the roughness progression model implicit in Figure 7.2. Representative plots of the model are
shown in Figure 3.2.
10
7 10
5
6
6
Ratio of Roughness 5 10
to Initial Roughness
4 7
10
0
1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
Cumulative (ESA)
Figure 3.2: Plot of roughness/initial roughness against cumulative ESAs for ‘standard’ design
ESAs of 105, 106 and 107 (based on procedure F1 thickness correction factors)
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 19 —
4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MECHANISTIC PROCEDURE

4.1 Broad Issues
A major attribute sought in a pavement design procedure is versatility – the ability to assess the
likely performance of a broad range of pavement configurations in a broad range of field conditions
(traffic, environment, etc.).
Its versatility may be conveniently assessed by determining where it lies between two idealised
extremes. These extremes are the fully empirical procedure and the fully mechanistic procedure.
A fully empirical procedure relies entirely on past observations of field performance. It allows no
extrapolation beyond the range of these observations. At the other extreme, the fully mechanistic
procedure allows unbounded extrapolation beyond past observations. It has this capability
because, intrinsic to it, is a fundamental understanding, for any pavement configuration, of:
the effect on each component material in the configuration of any wheel loading applied to
the pavement surface (such effects are changes to the stress-strain state within the material)
the performance of each of the component materials when subjected to the sequence of
changes in its stress-strain state caused by the traffic loading.
The fully empirical procedure is idealised because it is unworkable – no pavement about to be built
and trafficked will correspond exactly with one previously observed. The fully mechanistic
procedure is idealised because it is unattainable – due to the level of complexity involved. Hence,
all pavement design procedures fall between these two idealisations. Between them the
complexity increases along with versatility.
The WG was directed to develop a mechanistic procedure for pavements containing bound
materials because of the lack of versatility of the relevant procedures in the IGPTD.
Bearing in mind that the end users of the (yet to be developed) procedure were pavement
designers ‘out in the real world’, a major decision confronting the WG was the appropriate
compromise between increasing versatility and increasing complexity (the latter translating
ultimately into decreasing likelihood of use of the procedure).
The starting point for the WG was an assessment of the then state-of-the-art in mechanistic
analysis and design. The basis for mechanistic analysis may be summarised as follows.
The response within a pavement to the passage of a wheel load over it takes the form of changes
in the levels of stress and strain within it. These changes are predominantly transient, i.e. after the
passage of the wheel load, the stress-strain state within the pavement is very close to its state prior
to the passage of the wheel load. Although this residual change is small, it is nevertheless
important because it reflects the distress caused to the pavement by the passage of the wheel
load.
This residual change in the stress-strain state may be quite large at some specific locations within
the pavement (locations of localised shear, crack initiation, crack propagation). However, when it
is averaged over the volume of material affected by the passage of the wheel load, the residual
change in the stress-strain state is very small compared to the peak change that occurs during the
passage of the wheel load. Such localised occurrences attributable to localised in homogeneities
constitute the essence of distress within the pavement. It is the accumulation of these occurrences
with the passage of traffic loads which eventually becomes manifest as observable and readily
quantifiable distress.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 20 —
Modelling of these localised inhomogeneities and their effects (by the use of statistical mechanics)
was in its infancy at the time of the review.
Models which assume homogeneity of materials and (iteratively) determine the stress-strain state
after the passage of each wheel load in the sequence of traffic loading (and, hence, the
development of distress) were beginning to appear. A leading example of this genre is Yandell’s
Mechano-lattice model (e.g. Yandell 1981).
The vast majority of modelling work being undertaken and implemented at the time was based on
the following premises:
The distress within a pavement which is attributable to a single passage of a specific load on
a specific axle configuration can be assessed from the peak levels of the pavement’s
transient response (stresses and strains) to the passage of the axle load – the peak
response levels being determined in the early-life (undistressed) pavement.
The distress caused by n passages of the axle group:
— is proportional to n for fatigue cracking
— for permanent deformation, either increases exponentially with n (conventional models)
or asymptotes to a plateau value (shakedown model).
For mixed traffic loading:
fatigue damage is determined from Miner’s hypotheses
for permanent deformation damage, there are more than one alternative summation models
in use.
Miner’s hypothesis states that, for mixed traffic loading, fatigue failure will occur when:
∑ n/ N
i
i i
reaches a value of 1, where:
ni = the number of passages (within the mixed traffic loading) of loading type i
Ni = the number of passages of loading type i which will cause fatigue failure when loading
type i is the ONLY loading applied.
The summation is taken over all loading types present in the mixed traffic.
For the determination of peak transient response, the following two types of model were in use:
Linear elastic layer models, in which the pavement is assumed to be of infinite extent
longitudinally and transversely and downwards and the materials to be linear elastic with
moduli independent of applied stresses.
Finite element models, in which the pavement dimensions are finite and material moduli may
be stress-dependent.
While the above modelling work was, at the time, undergoing a vigorous phase of development, all
mechanistically-based design procedures either in use, or assembled but yet to be evaluated,
opted for:
a linear elastic layer model for determination of peak transient response
the peak level of tensile strain at the bottom of an asphalt layer as a predictor of fatigue life of
the asphalt
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 21 —
the peak level of either tensile strain or tensile stress at the bottom of a cemented layer as a
predictor of fatigue life of the cemented material.
Procedures which incorporated the capability of predicting the development of permanent

deformation with the passage of traffic used the peak levels of compressive strain at locations
throughout the relevant materials. None of these models enjoyed broad-based acceptance.
Procedures with the lesser capability of predicting cumulative traffic to produce a pre-assigned
level of surface rutting used the peak level of compressive strain at the top of the subgrade as the
predictor.
After due deliberation, the WG opted for a mechanistic analysis model comprising the following:
a linear elastic layer model to estimate peak levels of transient responses – specifically, the
CIRCLY model
peak tensile strain at the bottom of the layer as the appropriate response element for
estimating the fatigue lives of both asphalt and cemented materials
peak compressive strain at the top of the subgrade as the appropriate response element for
estimating permanent deformation both within the granular material and the subgrade.
The specific sub-models adopted to predict performance from these critical responses are
discussed below.
The model adopted incorporates major simplifications of the complex behaviour that actually
occurs. The WG was very aware of the nature and extent of the inherent simplifications at the time
this model was adopted. Its adoption was based on the following rationale.
The utility of an estimation model depends on:

the accuracy of its estimate when the inputs are known
the accuracy of its inputs
the likely extent of its use.
The more complex a model is, the better it scores on the first point and the worse it scores on the
other two points. Hence, the choice of level of model complexity involves compromise and is, in
the final analysis, subjectivity based.
In this context, it is of interest to note the outcome of a recent critical review of the mechanistic
procedure in the Guide (Rallings 1997). The review was quite detailed and encapsulated the views
of Australia’s leading proponents of pavement design and performance prediction. While the
shortcomings inherent in the (in-place) estimation procedures were duly noted along with possible
fruitful areas for improvement, the alternatives offered to replace part or all of the model were:
the shakedown model
the mechano-lattice elasto-plastic model (Yandell 1981)
the Vesys model (Kenis, Sherwood and McMahon 1981)
an adaptation of the Vesys rut depth prediction model (Vuong 1994).
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 22 —
The WG, at the time of formulation of the mechanistic procedure, was cognisant of the Mechano-
lattice and Vesys models and the early stages of the development of the shakedown model. The
WG was of the view that, while all models offered most desirable advances in the area of
simulation of actual behaviour, the input data requirements could not be reasonably expected to be
available to the routine pavement designer, nor could the designer be reasonably expected to
achieve and retain both an understanding of the models and competency in their use. Hence, the
result of introducing such a level of analysis complexity would be ‘to frighten the horses’.
In the view of this author, the situation has changed little since that time5. Rut depth prediction
within Vesys forms part of its performance model. In common with the Guide, Vesys uses a linear
elastic response model to determine the values of critical responses for use in the performance
model (even though the word Vesys is an acronym for viscoelastic system). Hence, if one chooses
to describe the mechanistic procedure in the Guide as ‘an elastic design system’ (Rallings 1997),
then such a descriptor is equally applicable to Vesys and, further, to all mechanistic design
procedures which enjoy routine use.
4.2 Elastic Characterisation

4.2.1 Isotropic or Anisotropic Characterisation?
This issue relates to the elastic characterisation within CIRCLY of pavement and subgrade
materials. Isotropic materials have the same properties in all directions, whereas anisotropic
materials do not. In terms of the stress-strain behaviour of the material, the difference is illustrated
by considering the simple stress state of equal principal stresses (σ1 = σ2 = σ3). For an isotropic
material, the resultant strain state is ∈1 = ∈2 = ∈3; γij = 0. For an anisotropic material, these
relationships do not hold. Further, the values of ∈i, γij depend on the orientations of the symbol σi
with respect to the material.
Isotropic materials are characterised by two parameters, usually Young’s Modulus (E) and
Poisson’s Ratio (ν). For comparison, the different ‘classes’ of anisotropy require the following
number of parameters to characterise the material:
general case 36
strain energy conserved 21
orthorhombic 9
cross-anisotropic 5
The orthorhombic case is where there are three principal axes of anisotropy (conceptually
appropriate for material which is mixed, placed and roller-compacted in one direction – the axes
being vertical, in the direction of rolling, and transverse to the direction of rolling).
The cross-anisotropic case is where there is an axis of symmetry of rotation, with the properties
being equal in all directions perpendicular to this axis (but different to those in the direction of the
axis). This is the case modelled in CIRCLY.
5
For example, the author is (and has been for 20 years) enamoured by the treatment within Vesys of the
effect of material variability on pavement performance. However, the input data requirements are
demanding to the extent that, to the author’s knowledge, only one such data set has ever been assembled!
Again, with regard to the Vesys rut depth prediction model, its formulation has considerable intuitive appeal.
However, in application its predictive capability has been, at best, fair. The detailed level of its input
requirements is well illustrated by Table IV of Vuong (1994).
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 23 —
This case is considered to be appropriate for naturally deposited material. Assuming the axis of
symmetry to be vertical, the five parameters required are (Wardle 1977):Eν, Eh, Fν, νh, ννh. The
WG, having adopted CIRCLY as the response model for the mechanistic procedure, was faced
with the decision as to whether cross-anisotropic characterisation was appropriate for (any or all of)
pavement and subgrade materials.
An additional consideration was the observation that measured deflection bowls were narrower
than those estimated from elastic layer analysis when isotropic characterisation was adopted. The
view was taken by the WG that, even if no evidence of anisotropic behaviour was discovered,
anisotropic characterisation may be appropriate within the constraints of the CIRCLY model to act
– in the case of granular and subgrade materials – as a surrogate for the (real) stress-dependence
of modulus.
The issue was approached in two ways. Firstly, a literature review was carried out to determine
(for each material type) evidence of anisotropic behaviour in laboratory stress-strain
measurements (appropriate field measurements were non-existent). Approximately 30 references
were located and reviewed, leading to the conclusion that there was little evidence of anisotropic
behaviour in the cases of asphalt and cemented materials, while there was definite evidence in the
cases of granular and subgrade materials. However, there was considerable variability in the
values of modular ratio (Eν/Eh) reported. For granular materials, they were predominantly greater
than 1 (ranging up to values as high as 4), while for fine-grained subgrade materials they ranged
from less than 1 to greater than 1.
The second approach involved response-to-load analyses (Youdale 1984a) to determine:

the effect on CIRCLY-estimated responses of different modular ratios for granular material
the effect on Finite Element Model (FEM)-estimated responses of incorporating (both
independently and conjointly) the stress-dependency of modulus of granular material and a
modular ratio of 2.
It was found that similar effects on FEM-estimated responses were obtained by:
modelling the granular material as isotropic and incorporating stress-dependency
modelling the granular material as anisotropic (Eν/Eh > 1) without stress-dependency.
In both cases, there was (cf. isotropic, no stress-dependency) a narrowing of the deflection bowl,
an increase in maximum deflection, and an increase in vertical compressive strain on top of the
subgrade.
The WG deduced from this that, regardless of the degree of anisotropy pertaining to granular
materials, adoption of anisotropic characterisation of granular materials (with Eν/Eh > 1) within the
CIRCLY model would be ‘a step in the right direction’ towards encompassing their known stress-
dependency of modulus together with their reported anisotropy. Further, to obtain a closer fit
between observed and CIRCLY-estimated deflection bowls, it was decided to adopt anisotropic
characterisation (with Eν/Eh > 1) for subgrades.
A value of 2 for the modular ratio (Eν/Eh) was adopted for both granular and subgrade materials as
a ‘best estimate compromise’.
The value of Eν (for use within CIRCLY) was taken to be the value of E determined from triaxial
test results under the assumption of isotropy. The values of νh, ννh were taken to be the value of
(isotropic) ν. The remaining cross-anisotropic parameter – Fν – was set equal to Eν /(1+ ν).
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 24 —
With these additional assumptions, the cross-anisotropic characterisation of granular and subgrade
materials was specified by values for Eν and ν. For asphalt and cemented materials, isotropic
characterisation was considered to be adequate and, hence, was adopted.
4.2.2 Values for Poisson’s Ratios

In estimating the levels of critical responses within the pavement, the pavement materials are
modelled in the Guide as being linear elastic. Bound materials (asphalt and cemented materials)
are modelled as isotropic and, as such, are fully characterised by values for the (Young’s) Modulus
(E) and Poisson’s Ratio ( ),with the latter being constrained (by the principle of conservation of
energy) to the range 0-0.5. A material with value 0, when subjected to uniaxial stress, exhibits no
strain in any direction transverse to that of the applied stress. With the same stress conditions, a
material with value 0.5 exhibits a level of transverse strain such that the volume of the material in
the stressed state is equal to its volume in the unstressed state. Hence, an isotropic material is
either compressible or incompressible. It cannot increase in volume (dilate) under compression,
such response being associated with ν > 0.5. While it is not uncommon to find values of ν > 0.5
reported in the literature, these values were observed from laboratory tests where the level of
confinement of the material was less than that in a pavement (except at a pavement edge). Such
values are attributable to (non-recoverable) re-orientation of particles within the material.
Granular materials, be they pavement or subgrade materials, are modelled as cross-anisotropic,

with stiffness in the vertical direction being twice that in (all) horizontal directions. A cross-
anisotropic material is characterised by five parameters – two direct moduli (Ev, Eh), one shear
modulus (Fv), and two Poisson’s Ratio (νh, νvh). In the Guide, the designer specifies a single
modulus (Ev) and a single Poisson’s Ratio (ν). The following relationships are used to generate the
parameter values:
νh = νvh = ν
Eh = Ev/2
Fv = Ev / (1 + ν)
For pavement materials, representative values and ranges for ν are provided in Tables 6.4 (a) and
(b) of the Guide and, for subgrades, representative values, distinct for cohesive and non-cohesive
soils, are provided in Section 5.7. These numerical values are identical to those tabulated in the
IGPTD (Table 2.8). While the WG, during the course of its various literature reviews, noted values
for Poisson’s Ratio reported in the literature, it saw no evidence to support changing the values
published five years earlier.
4.2.3 Relationship between Subgrade Modulus and CBR

The establishment of a relationship between modulus and CBR is intrinsically fraught with difficulty.
In the first instance, the two properties are markedly different. Resilient modulus is determined
under stress-strain conditions wherein the permanent strain in the material (after removal of the
applied stress) is but a small proportion of the total strain induced by the applied stress. In contrast
to this, the CBR value is associated with the peak resistance developed to a progressive shearing
failure of the material. Hence, the two properties are associated with the opposite ends of the
stress-strain plot for the material. There is the further complication that the value of resilient
modulus depends on the values of stresses applied.
While the above difficulties pertain to one material in one condition (specified by, say, dry density
and moisture content), a relationship was sought which was relevant for all naturally-occurring fine-
grained materials and, for each material, over a wide range of conditions (even this is a
considerable over-simplification, as it leaves aside the effects of how the material arrived at the
specified condition).
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 25 —
However, because the CBR test (or some surrogate for it) was (and essentially still is) the only test
commonly used to characterise subgrade materials, a relationship between CBR and modulus was
an essential component of the mechanistic design procedure.
The WG started with consideration of the information presented in Sparks and Potter (1982). The
report contained a review and comparison of relationships then in use (or proposed), together with
relationships for two Melbourne clays developed from results of in-house testing.
The test results reported, together with relationships developed, well illustrated the intrinsic
variability in subgrade material and the effect of the stress-dependency of the modulus (more
significantly, the strain-dependency).
After reviewing the information in this report, the WG tentatively adopted the relationship in the
report for the two Melbourne clays (E = 40.7 CBR0.37) on the grounds that ‘at least it is for
Australian soils and it is in amongst other relationships in use’.
However, upon later reflection, the WG opted for the relationship E = 10 CBR (developed by
Heukelom and Klomp (1962) from results of Rayleigh Wave and Dynamic Impedance testing in the
Netherlands and Rayleigh Wave testing in the UK) on the following grounds:
the relationship encompassed more soil types
it improved the fit of the subgrade strain relationship derived from mechanistic analysis of
granular pavements
it had a simpler form
it had been widely adopted.
The comment in the Guide that ‘a maximum value of 150 MPa is normally used’ is in reference to
cohesive soils.
4.2.4 Typical Modulus Values

The typical modulus values for unbound granular materials listed in Table 6.4(a) of the Guide are
based on the results of triaxial testing undertaken by Youdale on a range of materials. The values
for modulus achieved over granular material warrant a footnote indicating that they are values
achieved in the upper portion of the material when it is covered by a thin surfacing.
The typical modulus values for cemented material are based on limited testing undertaken by the
Main Roads Department, Queensland (1982), supplemented by test results reported in the
literature.
4.2.5 Stress Regimes for Triaxial Testing of Granular Materials

The recommended stress conditions for triaxial testing indicated in Table 6.7 were determined
from:
triaxial testing of granular materials over a broad stress regime to determine a stress-
dependent relationship for the modulus of the material
finite element analyses of representative pavement structures incorporating the material
the selection of representative stress conditions within the pavement from the results of the
analyses.
The laboratory investigations are reported in Youdale (1978).
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 26 —
4.2.6 Sublayering of Granular Materials and Assignment of Moduli

With the knowledge that:
the modulus of a granular material depends on the stress conditions it is subjected to
these stress conditions depend on the stiffness(es) of the underlying material(s)
the stress levels decrease within a pavement structure as the depth below the surface
increases
in the response model CIRCLY, layers are constrained to having a fixed modulus value
then it was obvious that the simulation within CIRCLY of actual stress-strain conditions would
be improved for many pavement configurations by considering the granular material to be
comprised of more than one layer, each with a distinct modulus value.
The rules for determining when the sublayering is necessary and, if so, the appropriate number of
sublayers, together with appropriate modulus for each sublayer, are presented in Section 8.2.2 of
the Guide.
The rules were formulated on the basis of the results of finite element analyses of representative
pavement structures undertaken by Youdale (1983). The results of these analyses were used to
determine the thicknesses of bands (sublayers) within the granular material wherein the variation in
its modulus in the region beneath the load was acceptably low. This provided a basis for
determining when sublayering was appropriate and also the appropriate range of sublayering
thicknesses. Consideration of representative values for the modulus of each band provided the
basis for establishing a rule for the assignment of moduli to each of the sublayers. The following
section describes how appropriate values were determined for the top sublayer.
The rule as finally adopted encapsulated the influences of both the cover over the granular material
and the stiffness of the supporting subgrade while providing a (reasonably) smooth transition of
modulus with depth.
In the course of the development of these rules, the rules adopted by Shell in its Pavement Design
Manual (Shell 1978) were scrutinised. It was considered that the Shell rules, while presumably
quite adequate for their intended role, were too coarse (minimum sublayer thickness of 150 mm)
for the situation where the granular material is covered with a thin surfacing.
4.2.7 Modulus of Top Sublayer of Granular Material

The entries in Table 6.6 of the Guide were derived from results of a study by Youdale (1983)
wherein a finite element package (PAVAN1) was used to determine modulus values in a granular
material which was covered with asphalt and subjected to surface loading representing one side of
a Standard Axle. The following points are relevant:
The granular material modelled was Hornsby Breccia modified with 2% hydrated lime,
representing a good quality crushed rock base material, well compacted at about 2% below
optimum moisture content (OMC).
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 27 —
Its stress-dependency – based on repeated load triaxial testing – was given by

MR = 7.46 σ00.022τ00.648
Where
MR = resilient modulus
σo = mean direct stress (kPa), = 1/3(σ1 + 2σ3)
τo = octahedral shear stress (kPa), = √3/2(σ1 –σ3)
σ1 = vertical stress
σ3 = horizontal stress
Poisson’s ratio = 0.35.
Because PAVAN1 is an axi-symmetric model, and because the granular material was stress-
dependent, it was not possible to model one side of the Standard Axle as two distinct tyre
prints. A ‘composite’ loading was therefore adopted, being a single circular area of radius
300 mm loaded to 40 kN.
Six pavement configurations were analysed – asphalt thicknesses of 0, 50, 100 and 150 mm
with an asphalt modulus of 2,800 MPa, and asphalt thicknesses of 100 and 150 mm with an
asphalt modulus 1,000 MPa. The subgrade modulus was fixed at 30 MPa. All materials
were modelled as isotropic.
Contours of modulus within the granular material were plotted.
The six values deduced from the contour plots form the entries in Table 6.6 for material
compacted using Standard compactive effort, covered by asphalt at 25ºC of < 25, 50, 100
and 150 mm and covered by asphalt at 30ºC of thicknesses 100 and 150 mm.
All the other Table 6.6 entries were determined by extrapolating from these values.
4.2.8 Modulus of Granular Material Overlying a Cemented Layer

Section 8.2.2(1) of the Guide states, ‘For granular materials placed directly on a stiff cemented
subbase, no sublayering is required’. This statement is based on results of a finite element
analysis undertaken by Youdale (1984b). The modelling and analysis were as outlined above
(Section 4.2.7). Six pavements were modelled: granular thicknesses of 150, 200 and 250 mm on
cemented material having stiffnesses of 2,000 and 5,000 MPa.
4.2.9 Relationships between Modulus and UCS for Cemented Materials.

Two relationships are presented in Section 6.3.2.3 of the Guide for estimating the modulus of
cemented material from its UCS value – one for cemented crushed rock and one for cemented
natural gravel. Reference is given in the Section to a MRD Queensland (1982) report. The
relationships stem from two sources.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 28 —
Otte (1978) determined relationships between flexural strength and flexural stiffness for the two
classes of materials, based on an extensive program of laboratory testing (70 field samples for
each material, six specimens from each sample). He determined the following relationships:
Eb = 8.15σb + 3,485 (cemented crushed rock)
Eb = 10.06σb + 1,098 (cemented gravel)
Where Eb (MPa) is the bending stiffness and σb (kPa) is the bending strength.
Otte refers to a review by Walker (1976) of the relationship between UCS and bending strength
wherein Walker suggests that the following relationship is appropriate:
σb = 0.51.UCS0.88
Where UCS is in units of kPa.
Otte substituted this relationship for σb in the above two relationships. The resulting relationships
(with UCS in units of MPa) are as given in the Guide.
4.2.10 Characterisation of Cracked Cemented Materials

Section 8.5 of the Guide discusses the possibility of significant life remaining in a pavement
subsequent to the cracking of cemented material, indicating that it is appropriate to characterise
the cracked material as granular material. The intention of this latter statement is that the cracked
material be considered as a granular material in all respects (2:1 anisotropy, Poisson’s Ratio =
0.35, sublayering as per Section 8.2.2).
Due to an oversight, no guidance was offered on which of the two sets of entries in Table 6.6 (for
Modified and Standard compactive efforts) was appropriate. The intention was that materials
whose initial stiffnesses were 5000 MPa or more be assigned values corresponding to Modified
compactive effort, and materials with lower stiffnesses be assigned values corresponding to
Standard compactive effort.
4.3 Performance Relationships

4.3.1 Subgrade Strain Criterion
In formulating procedures for the design of flexible pavements, one very early decision (by the
MEC Review Committee) was that the existing procedure for the design of granular pavements
with thin bituminous surfacing (Procedure F1 of the IGPTD) be retained. The procedure (unaltered
except for a minor change in the minimum thickness of base material required) forms Section 8.3
of the current Guide.
At a later stage, in the course of the development of the mechanistic procedure, the WG decided to
follow the approach adopted by Shell by selecting the maximum vertical strain generated at the top
of the subgrade (by a Standard Axle) as the pavement response best suited for the prediction of
allowable traffic before permanent deformation in the granular layers and subgrade reached an
unacceptable level.
The prediction relationship takes the general form:

N = a ∈-b
Where N is the allowable number of repetitions of strain ∈, and a and b are (+ve) constants.
This relationship is commonly referred to as the Subgrade Strain Criterion.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 29 —
As the failure mechanism adopted for granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacing is
permanent deformation in the granular layers and subgrade (manifest at the surface as rutting and
roughness), to achieve consistency between designs produced by the Section 8.3 procedure and
designs produced by the (yet to be developed) mechanistic procedure, it was necessary to derive
the subgrade strain criterion in such a manner that it would predict the performance implicit in
Figure 8.4 of Section 8.3 (the CBR-Thickness-Traffic Chart).
Derivation of the relationship was carried out by Youdale (1984c) and Jameson (1996) undertook a
thorough appraisal of the derivation process which is reproduced here with minor amendments.
The subgrade strain criterion which was adopted for use in the Guide is:
N = (8511/μ∈)7.14
Where N is the allowable number of strain repetitions before an acceptable level of rutting, and μ∈
is the vertical compressive strain (microstrain).
This relationship was derived from back-analyses of 25 pavements selected from Figure 8.3 of the
Guide. For each pavement, CIRCLY was used to calculate the compressive strain at the top of the
subgrade between the dual wheels of the Standard Axle. The following procedures were used in
the modelling:
Each pavement was modelled as consisting of a single base layer, with one or more subbase
layers.
Bases, subbases and subgrades were considered as cross-anisotropic, with the vertical
modulus being twice the horizontal modulus. This anisotropy was regarded (Potter and
Donald 1984) as a device to compensate for the absence of a lateral stress dependent
mechanism for elastic modulus.
The base thickness was made equal to 150 mm except where the total pavement thickness
was less than 250 mm, in which case the base thickness was reduced to 100 mm. The base
vertical modulus used was 350 MPa.
Subbase layers were sub-divided such that the sublayer thicknesses did not exceed 150 mm
and the ratio of the moduli of any two layers was less than 2.
The Poisson’s ratio of all the granular pavement layers was 0.35.
The subgrade vertical modulus (MPa) was taken as 10 times the subgrade CBR and the
Poisson’s ratio was assumed to be 0.45.
The Standard Axle loading consisted of two 110 mm radii circular loads separated by 330
mm centre to centre, with a tyre pressure of 550 kPa.
The calculated subgrade strain for each pavement was plotted against its design traffic. The plot
indicated that the results for pavements with a subgrade CBR of 20 were not consistent with other
results (their strain values being somewhat lower for the same design traffic). This was not
considered to be of great importance (Youdale 1984c) because the correlation between CBR and
modulus is questionable at high CBR values. In addition, it was suggested that subgrades with
high CBR values would generally have low plasticity and hence would not tend to deform
plastically.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 30 —
For these reasons a linear regression analysis was carried out on the results excluding the
pavements with subgrade CBR of 20 and the following relationship was obtained:
log με = 3.93 – 0.14 log N
Where N is the allowable number of Equivalent Standard Axles of loading before an unacceptable
level of rutting; and με is the vertical compressive strain under a Standard Axle (microstrain)
By rearranging this equation, the Austroads subgrade strain relationship (above) was obtained.
Jameson noted the following inconsistencies between the modelling procedure adopted by
Youdale and the modelling procedure adopted in the Guide:
The manner in which the moduli for the granular layers was estimated. In the Guide the total
thickness of granular material is sub-divided such that layer thicknesses are in the range 50-
150 mm and the ratio of the moduli of adjacent layers is less than two. As discussed above,
Youdale used a different procedure.
The subgrade strains between the dual wheel loads were calculated by Youdale rather than
the maxima of the strains between and under the wheels.
This author’s recollection is that Youdale’s approach was consistent with the views of the WG at
the time he undertook the derivation.
Jameson notes as a third inconsistency: Youdale’s use of 550 kPa tyre pressure. The author begs
to differ in this matter. Firstly the Guide (Table 8.1, Step 11) recommends that the designer use a
tyre pressure in the range 550-700 kPa. Secondly, the Example Charts in the Guide are based on
a tyre pressure of 550 kPa. Thirdly, and more importantly, is the consideration that the subgrade
strain criterion was derived to reflect the performance (as encapsulated in Figure 8.4 of the Guide)
of granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacings. Figure 8.4 was adopted by the WG (at the
behest of the MEC Review Committee) as being a fair reflection of observed field performance.
This observed field performance was performance under truck traffic when tyre pressures of
around 550 kPa were the norm. Hence, something akin to 550 kPa was the appropriate tyre
pressure to adopt at that time for estimating the strains generated in those pavements whose
performance is reflected in Figure 8.4. (The corollary to this is that, with the current tyre pressures
in excess of 700 kPa, the validity of Figure 8.4 should be re-assessed.)
Jameson points out that a regression of ESAs on strain is more appropriate for use in the
mechanistic procedure than the regression of strain on ESAs undertaken. He further points out
that, because the relationship is used ‘both ways’, the appropriate relationship is the bisector of the
two. The author fully concurs.
Jameson’s discussion relating to the fact that the relationship in the Guide is a ‘mongrel’
relationship in that it predicts the cumulative number of ESAs before the terminal condition is
reached on the basis of strain produced by a Standard Axle is most apposite. What was sought
was a general relationship which predicts, for a given level of strain, the allowable number of
repetitions of that strain. The existing relationship does not achieve this because the cumulative
number of ESAs represent mixed traffic loading and, hence, a broad range of strain values.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 31 —
The WG was aware of this dilemma at the time of adoption of the relationship, but could not
discover the appropriate solution. After reading Jameson’s discussion the author is of the view that
a satisfactory solution can be reached in the following manner.
For a pavement which produces a strain level, μ∈, when loaded by a Standard Axle, accept
that the allowable cumulative number of ESAs is given by the term (8511/μ∈)7.14. The traffic
loading which is reflected in this cumulative number of ESAs is the traffic loading that was on
the road network when the performance encapsulated in Figure 8.4 was verified/accepted.
The problem was that there was no representative distribution of loads on axle groups for the traffic
of that time. In the absence of this information, let us adopt the information in Table 8.3 of the
Guide. For this mixture of traffic loading, it is known that N ESAs produce the same level of
permanent deformation as 1.1*N repetitions of a Standard Axle. Hence (8511/μ∈)7.14 ESAs
produce the same level of permanent deformation as 1.1*(8511/μ∈)7.14 repetitions of a Standard
Axle.
Hence, the relationship can be re-written as follows:
N = 1.1 * (8511/μ∈)7.14
Where μ∈ is the strain produced by a Standard Axle and N is the number of repetitions of the
Standard Axle.
This is the general relationship sought. Simplifying the relationship, and generalising the
interpretation of the terms, gives:
N = (8625/μ∈)7.14
Where N is the allowable number of repetitions of strain μ∈.
Better estimation of the ‘early days’ traffic load distribution would lead to a better relationship.
The above approach is similar to Jameson’s except that he opts (for reasons unclear to the author)
to use the more recently derived traffic distribution in Table I-1.
4.3.2 Fatigue Cracking of Cemented Material

At the time of developing the Guide, the leading proponent within Australia of extensive use of
cemented materials was the Main Roads Department, Queensland (MRDQ). Apace with this
increased use, an increased appreciation of its performance developed within MRDQ. The WG
availed itself of this knowledge base and was guided by them in the formation of fatigue
relationships for cemented materials.
The performance relationship in both the 1987 and 1992 versions of the Guide is:
N = (K/μ∈)18
Where N is the number of repetitions of tensile strain at the bottom of the cemented layer before
fatigue failure occurs, i.e. when the level of this strain is μ∈ microstrain.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 32 —
The numerator K depends on the stiffness of the material as follows:
Modulus of cemented Value of K

material (MPa)
2,000 280
5,000 200
10,000 150
In November 1997, a revision to the Guide was issued by Austroads which replaced the above
relationships by the following:
N = (K/μ∈)12
and the numerator K depended on the stiffness of the material as follows:

material (MPa)
2,000 440
3,500 350
5,000 310
10,000 260
15,000 240
The development of these two sets of relationships can be summarised as follows.
In the development of pavement thickness design curves for Queensland conditions based on
elastic analysis methods, Baran and Aubrey (1978) noted the following relationship developed by
Pretorius (1969):
N = (142/μ∈)20.3
The modulus of the material was not known, but assumed to be > 10,000 MPa (later confirmed in
Pretorius and Monismith (1972) to be 28,000 MPa). They also noted a (graphical) relationship
between strain-at-break and modulus for cement-treated natural weathered gravel in Walker et al.
(1977).
The Pretorius relationship gave a tolerable strain level of 72 μ∈ for 106 repetitions which, from the
Walker et al. plot corresponded to 65% of the strain at break for materials stiffer than 10,000 MPa.
This ratio (tolerable strain for 106 repetitions)/(strain at break) = 0.65 was adopted as being
applicable to materials with moduli down to 2,000 MPa. For a given modulus, the corresponding
strain at break was determined from the Walker et al. plot and then multiplied by 0.65 to give the
tolerable strain for 106 repetitions. In a similar manner, values of this ratio for 105 and 107
repetitions were determined for the Pretorius material and applied to less stiff material.
On this basis, fatigue relationships were developed for materials of moduli 2,000, 5,000, 7,000, and
≥10,000 MPa over the range 105 to 107 strain repetitions. These relationships were then used in
the development of thickness design charts by Baran and Aubrey. Angell (1988) reported that the
relationships for the materials with moduli 2000, 5000 and ≥ 10,000 MPa were of the form:
N = (K1/ε)K2
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 33 —
with the values of K1 and K2 as follows:
Modulus of cemented K1 K2
material (MPa)
2000 259 19.9
5000 244 14.5
≥ 10000 152 18.3
Litwinowicz (1982) undertook a review of the basis for these relationships and found that (in
Angell’s words):
the general level of these relationships appeared to be appropriate but that their
exact form and slope still required further investigation
The WG, in reviewing these relationships, expressed some surprise that the value of the exponent
(K2) did not change monotonically with the material modulus.
Further investigations were undertaken and the relationships eventually adopted by the WG for
inclusion in the 1987 Guide were recommended by Litwinowicz (1984) on the basis of his
investigations.
Subsequent to the WG’s adoption of the relationships with exponent 18, Angell (1988), in the
course of development of a pavement design manual for MRDQ, undertook a further review of the
literature and reported fatigue exponents of 32, 9, 12.7, 12.2 and 12 for relationships developed by
workers in four countries.
In light of this, together with his proposition that, if the true exponent were 18, then cement-treated
pavements in Queensland would be failing very early in their design life because of vehicle
overloading, Angell opted for an exponent of 12 and derived numerator (K1) values such that the
revised relationships (in his words) ‘allow approximately the same levels of strain as the
relationships previously used’. Angell developed the following relationship:
N = (K/μ∈)12
with values of K as follows:
material (MPa)
2,000 440
5,000 310
15,000 240
The WG was apprised of MRDQ’s intention to adopt these revised relationships while the original
(1987 version) Guide was in press. The Austroads revision note (November 1997) adopted these
relationships, together with additional relationships for materials with moduli of 3,500 and
10,000 MPa. The additional relationships were determined as follows:
From Angell’s three relationships, Jameson, Sharp and Yeo (1992) derived (by linear
regression) the following general relationship:
log10 N = 43.21 – 3.58log10E – 12log10 μ∈
Substituting for E the values 3,500 and 10,000 gives the additional relationships.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 34 —
Issue of the revision note was prompted by a further literature review conducted by Jameson
(1995) and by the findings of a recent ALF trial of cemented materials (Jameson et al. 1995).
4.3.3 Fatigue Relationship for Asphalt

To assist the WG in arriving at a recommended fatigue relationship for asphalt, Anderson (1982a)
undertook a comprehensive review of the international literature, comparing published
relationships from eight sources encompassing South Africa, the USA, and Europe. The
Bibliography is attached (see page 1-50). Direct comparison between relationships proved difficult
because of the differences in materials (aggregates, binder sources), mix compositions, laboratory
test methods, and definitions of fatigue test failure. Desirable attributes sought in a relationship
were that:
it be developed from controlled strain testing (appropriate for thin asphalt courses)
allowance be made for crack propagation
some cracking be tolerated during field fatigue life
it was appropriate for mixes with stiffnesses ranging from 500 to 20,000 MPa.
Three relationships were considered to satisfy the above requirements reasonably well – Shell,
Paterson and Maree (1978), and Santucci (1977). Among these, Shell was the most versatile in
terms of mix properties, temperatures, and loading times. After due consideration, therefore, the
WG adopted the Shell relationship for recommended use in the Guide.
It is now well understood that the Shell relationship is for fatigue failure in the laboratory and not in
the field. This fact was not appreciated by the WG at the time. Commenting on the Shell
relationship, Anderson stated that it is ‘supposedly directly applicable to design, allowing for crack
propagation through the asphalt.’ In discussing desirable attributes of a relationship, Anderson
states:
Consideration should be given to crack propagation and tolerable cracking as well
as the possibility of crack healing occurring under intermittent loading. Shell (1978)
report field to laboratory fatigue life correction factors of 10-20.
Further, it has been noted above that the Shell relationship, as adopted, was considered by the
WG to provide allowance for crack propagation and to tolerate some cracking in the field. Hence,
while it was the desire and the intention of the WG that the adopted relationship incorporated
laboratory-to-field corrections, the relationship ultimately adopted contains no such correction. A
detailed review of the development of the Shell laboratory fatigue relationships (including materials
tested, test conditions, etc.), together with Shell’s use of correction factors in its design procedure,
is provided in Potter (1997).
4.4 Design Traffic

4.4.1 Axle Loads Which Cause Equal Damage
In assessing the damaging effect of design traffic, an essential requirement is the ability to
compare damaging effects of loads on different axle configurations. In the Guide, the basis for this
comparison is provided in Table 7.1, which lists, for the common axle configurations, the load on
the axle configuration which will produce the same damage as a Standard Axle (a Standard Axle is
defined as a dual-tyred single axle transmitting a load of 80 kN to the pavement).
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 35 —
In the mid-1960s, several independent analyses of AASHO Road Test data were reported which
inter alia provided estimates of the relative damaging effects of dual-tyred single axles and dual-
tyred tandem axles. Because these estimates were based on the performance of pavements with
relatively thick asphalt surfacings which were subject to freeze-thaw cycles, they were considered
to be not directly applicable to the bulk of the Australian road network – with its surfacing of chip
seal or thin asphalt and not subject to freeze-thaw cycles6.
For these reasons, Scala undertook a field study based on the premise (reasonably well supported
by limited AASHO data) that axle groups which cause equal maximum deflection in the pavement
cause equal pavement damage. The study was undertaken on a range of pavements, with both
chip seal and thin asphalt surfacing, in the Altona-Williamstown area of Melbourne. A ‘scaled up’
version of the Benkelman Beam was used to record peak deflections for steer axle and triaxle
deflections, a pad (approx. 50 mm thick, made from industrial rubber conveyor belting) with a
transverse slit in it was placed on the road and a conventional Benkelman Beam was positioned
transversely with its tip in the slit. Maximum deflection was recorded as the axle (group) passed
over the pad.
Scala recorded the data and his analysis in internal ARRB reports. The author is not aware of any
extant copies of these reports. However, Scala’s findings and some of the data are reported in
Scala (1970a).
With regard to load on a single-tyred single axle which produces the same maximum deflection as
a Standard Axle, Scala states (in the paper): ‘The equivalent load by deflection tests is about
11.6 kips’ (51.6 kN) and ‘In this paper 12 kips (53.4 kN) is used mainly for ease of computation’.
The only data in the paper relates to maximum deflections recorded for dual-tyred single and
tandem axles. It is presented in the form of a plot of the ratio (tandem axle deflection)/(single axle
deflection) versus the ratio (tandem axle load)/(single axle load). A broad range of deflection ratios
is plotted for each of six load ratios (corresponding to six days of testing). For three of the six load
ratios, the reader is cautioned that the data ‘may be affected by water penetration’.
With regard to the load on a tandem axle group which produces the same maximum deflection as
a Standard Axle, the paper provides two values – 28.9 kip (128.6 kN) and 29.2 kip (129.9 kN) – in
a summary table (Table VIII), together with the statement ‘Assuming that a 30 kip tandem axle load
gives a deflection of the same magnitude as an 18 kip single axle (dual tyre) load, ....’.
With regard to the load on a triaxle group which produces the same maximum deflection as a
Standard Axle, information in the paper is restricted to the statement; ‘.....it is expected that the
three axle group with a load of 40.7 kips (181.0 kN) would be equivalent (in terms of maximum
deflection) to a single axle of 18 kip (80.1 kN).’
In an ARRB internal report (Scala 1970b), written approximately five months after the above paper,
Scala was much more focussed, stating that:
Using an 18 kip single axle load (dual wheel) as the standard axle load, equivalent
repetitions of other axle loads are given by:
(i) Single axle (single wheel) (w/12)4
(ii) Single axle (dual wheel) ((w/18)4
(iii) Tandem axle (dual wheels) (w/30)4
6
In addition, the analyses did not encompass single-tyred single axles (steer axles) or triaxles. Steer axles
were considered to have caused minimal damage at the AASHO Road Test and, hence, were not included in
the analyses. Triaxles were not included in the AASHO performance studies.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 36 —
For the NAASRA Economics of Road Vehicle Limits (ERVL) Study, Stevenson (1976) adopted the
following values, based on the above two Scala references and discussions with him:
Single-tyred single axle 5.4 t (53.0 kN)
Dual-tyred single axle 8.2 t (80.4 kN)
Dual-tyred tandem axle 13.6 t (133.4 kN)
Dual-tyred triaxle 18.5 t (181.5 kN)
The IGPTD (1979) adopted the first three of the above values in its Table 2.15. It did not cater for
triaxles – most probably an oversight.
The WG, in its formulation of Table 7.1 in the Guide, reviewed the above material and, in addition,
values in use overseas. The largest discrepancy between the above values and those in use
overseas was for the dual-tyred tandem axle (see, for example, the values for AASHO and Asphalt
Institute in Table VII of Scala (1970a)). Further, the WG noted Scala’s later adoption of 13.7 t for
tandem axles (Scala 1977). On these grounds, the WG opted for the values presented in
Table 7.1 as follows:
Single-tyred single axle 53 kN

Dual-tyred single axle 80 kN
Dual-tyred tandem axle 135 kN
Dual-tyred triaxle 181 kN
4.4.2 Derivation of ‘Standard Axle (or Traffic) Factors’

The derivation of ‘Standard Axle (or Traffic) Factors’ in Sections 7.5.2 and 7.5.3 of the Guide and
also of the data in Table 8.3(a) and (b) of the Austroads (1992) Pavement Design Guide is
documented in notes prepared by the author and faxed to David Angell (formerly of MRDQ) on
1 April 1987.
Derivation of Tables 8.3(a) and 8.3(b)

ABS data was used to compile the following (Table 4.1) of axle group-km x 106 travelled annually
(year unknown) in non-urban areas according to type of axle group and State/Territory:
Table 4.1: Distribution of axle group type by state/territory

Axle group type
State/territory Single axle Single axle Tandem axle Triple axle
single tyres dual tyres dual tyres dual tyres
NSW 3,802 2,875 1,551 571
Vic 2,589 1,972 1,105 366
Qld 1,704 1,271 711 269
WA 1,309 1,044 517 167
SA 868 573 488 174
Tas 270 186 160 18
ACT 76 50 36 12
NT 146 80 132 88
Total 10,764 8,051 4,700 1665
The column totals give the proportions in Table 8.3(a) of the Austroads Guide.
Using RoRVL data, the data in Table 4.2 was compiled of percentage distribution of loads on axle
groups according to type of axle group and state/territory.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 37 —
Derivation of ‘Standard Axle Factors’

For axle group-km travelled by Single Axles with Single Tyres, that percentage which is travelled in
NSW with a 1 tonne load is: (3,802/10,745) x 0.5. (The first two numbers are given in italics in the
left-hand column of Table 4.1, whilst the third number is shown in italics in the left hand column of
Table 4.2 (AG1).)
Similarly, for Victoria, the percentage is (2,589/10,764) x 5.7. And so on, for all states/territories.
Summing these quantities for all states/territories gives that percentage of the axle group-km
travelled in non-urban Australia by Single Axle Single Tyres for which the axle load is 1 tonne. The
answer to this summation is approximately 3.633%. Converting that to a proportion gives
approximately 0.03633. The number (but abbreviated to 0.036) forms the first entry in the first
column of Table 8.3(b) of the Austroads Guide.
Repeating this process for all loads on all axle group types for all states/territories, and summing
the results (after rounding to 3 decimal places) gives the entries in Table 8.3(b).
The distribution of loads on Single Axle Single Tyres (column 1 of Table 8.3(b)) produces the same
subgrade distress as the following number of Standard Axles:
0.036(1/5.4)7.14 + 0.116(2/5.4)7.14 + 0.004(7/5.4)7.14 + 0.001(8/5.4)7.14 = 0.4091 (approx.)
If the entries in column 1 of Table 8.3(b) are not rounded to 3 decimal = 0.4227 (approx.).
places, then this sum
A similar procedure is adopted for asphalt fatigue and cemented material fatigue, with the
exponent used being 5 and 18 respectively rather than 7.14 (as per the performance models in the
Austroads Guide). Similarly, ESAs would be derived using an exponent of 4.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 38 —
Table 4.2: RoRVL load distributions on axle groups according to axle group type
AG1: Single Axle, Single Tyres
Load (t) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
NSW 0.5 5.3 11.8 25.2 50.3 6.4 0.5 0.1
VIC 5.7 16.5 17.2 24.5 30.2 5.5 0.2 0.1 0.0
QLD 8.0 14.7 15.8 28.9 27.8 4.6 0.2 0.0
WA 1.7 14.8 23.9 30.7 23.9 4.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1
SA 3.1 12.4 14.7 21.8 36.2 10.8 0.9
TAS 8.5 14.0 14.7 33.8 26.8 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
ACT 5.7 21.0 25.5 24.8 19.7 3.2
NT 8.0 11.8 13.5 31.2 29.5 5.6 0.5
TOT 5.1 13.6 16.7 27.6 31.1 5.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
AG2: Single Axle, Dual Tyres

Load (t) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
NSW 0.7 6.9 11.8 15.7 13.6 14.9 12.4 14.1 7.4 1.6 0.5 0.4
VIC 4.8 21.2 20.1 13.8 9.7 7.7 6.5 8.0 5.8 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.1
QLD 8.4 18.6 21.6 12.8 10.3 6.4 7.2 8.8 4.8 0.9 0.3 0.0
WA 2.7 14.4 21.8 18.8 10.3 9.6 6.8 7.3 4.9 2.6 0.5 0.4
SA 5.4 17.5 15.5 13.6 12.4 10.9 8.7 10.9 4.3 0.6 0.2
TAS 10.6 23.3 16.0 14.1 9.6 5.7 5.7 8.4 5.4 0.9 0.3
ACT 5.9 30.6 24.7 10.6 10.6 7.1 2.4 2.4 3.5 1.2 1.2
NT 12.8 18.5 21.9 14.6 9.7 7.1 5.4 4.8 2.8 1.5 0.7 0.1 0.1
TOT 6.0 18.0 19.5 14.6 10.5 8.4 7.2 8.6 5.1 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.0
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 39 —
Table 4.2: RoRVL load distributions on axle groups according to axle group type – cont’d
AG3: Tandem Axle, Dual Tyres
Load (t) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
NSW 0.7 2.2 4.4 5.3 5.0 3.6 2.9 3.5 5.5 6.4 7.8 13.6 21.2 12.2 4.3 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1
VIC 0.0 0.2 2.0 5.6 8.9 12.9 8.1 5.4 3.8 4.6 4.1 4.7 6.2 9.0 10.9 9.3 3.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1
QLD 0.0 0.1 1.1 4.6 11.0 11.5 8.4 4.8 4.2 3.0 3.5 4.7 8.4 10.7 12.9 6.9 2.3 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.1
WA 0.1 0.9 6.7 12.0 8.1 8.4 6.0 4.1 2.9 3.2 3.6 5.1 5.8 7.2 7.9 8.4 5.6 2.5 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0
SA 1.5 4.8 6.7 8.1 5.9 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.2 7.3 6.8 7.6 10.4 14.3 5.1 0.7 0.2 0.1
TAS 0.2 1.7 5.7 7.1 9.9 5.2 3.7 7.5 4.3 3.2 4.6 6.7 7.7 15.6 12.5 3.2 1.1 0.2
ACT 3.6 4.5 11.8 23.6 9.1 6.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.7 1.8 3.6 7.3 3.6 2.7 2.7 1.8 4.5 2.7 0.9 0.9
NT
TOT
AG4: Triple Axle, Dual Tyres

Load (t) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
NSW 0.1 1.7 3.6 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.2 1.8 2.8 1.7 3.3 4.9 5.5 5.5 9.9 20.7 14.7 7.7 4.6 1.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2
VIC 1.1 10.5 12.5 6.5 4.5 3.4 4.0 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.4 3.4 6.2 5.5 12.0 11.0 6.7 2.9 0.8 0.1 0.1
QLD 0.1 1.9 8.9 10.8 7.1 4.6 3.8 2.5 3.1 1.7 2.3 2.5 3.8 4.8 7.5 9.9 11.1 5.6 3.6 1.8 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1
WA 4.8 11.0 3.8 10.0 8.4 6.7 4.1 3.6 2.2 3.8 2.6 5.7 4.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 3.1 1.4 1.0 0.5
SA 2.0 5.7 4.4 4.8 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.0 2.7 5.5 4.4 4.8 10.1 8.3 11.9 10.7 8.5 3.6 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.2
TAS 0.5 2.3 13.2 6.8 6.8 2.7 1.8 1.4 3.2 2.3 3.2 5.9 7.8 5.0 10.0 11.9 10.0 4.6 0.5
ACT 17.6 11.8 11.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 11.8 5.9 11.8 5.9 5.9
NT 0.1 1.1 6.5 12.3 6.7 5.4 5.3 4.4 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 5.3 6.1 7.7 6.0 6.0 5.0 2.3 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.1
TOT 0.1 1.5 7.4 9.1 5.5 4.5 3.7 3.4 2.7 2.3 2.9 3.4 4.1 5.7 7.0 11.4 10.5 6.5 4.0 2.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 40 —
By using non-rounded entries for Table 8.3(b) in conjunction with Standard Axle loads of 5.4 t,
8.2 t, 13.6 t and 18.5 t for the four axle group types, and going through the above procedure for
each axle group type and each distress mode (and also for the exponent 4), the following
tabulation (Table 4.3) of the number of Standard Axles for the same distress as axle groups with
(non-rounded) Table 8.3(b) load distributions is derived.
Table 4.3: Number of standard axles for same distress as axle groups with (non-rounded) load distributions
Distress Exponent
Axle/tyre Subgrade Asphalt Cemented ESA
(7.14) (5) (18) (4)
Single Axle Single Tyre 0.4227 0.4396 12.8507 0.4709
Single Axle Dual Tyres 0.3872 0.3421 4.9029 0.3457
Tandem Axle Dual Tyres 1.2742 0.9473 16.8339 0.8526
Triple Axle Dual Tyres 0.7630 0.6635 7.4317 0.6446
If for each column of Table 4.3, the entries are weighted by the appropriate proportions in Table
8.3(a) of the Guide, then the following is derived:
Distress mode Number of standard axles per axle group which

produce same distress
Subgrade 0.5884
Asphalt 0.5155
Cemented 10.6451
and the number of ESAs per axle group = 0.5117. Dividing the above entries by 0.5117 gives:
Number of Standard Axles for same subgrade distress: 1.1499 x no. of ESAs
Number of Standard Axles for same asphalt distress: 1.0074 x no. of ESAs
Number of Standard Axles for same cemented distress: 20.8034 x no. of ESAs
On the basis of these calculations, it was decided to adopt 1.1, 1.1 and 20 respectively for the
above factors.
4.4.3 Cumulative Growth Factor for Estimation of Design Traffic

In the Guide, cumulative traffic over a design period is determined by multiplying the first-year
traffic by the Cumulative Growth Factor for the specific design period and annual growth rate of
traffic.
The first-year traffic is 365 x initial AADT. (This is simply a re-statement of the definition of AADT.)
Values of Cumulative Growth Factor are provided in Table 7.2 of the Guide. For the case where
the annual growth rate is zero, the Cumulative Growth factor is equal to the design period (years).
For the case where the annual growth rate is non-zero, the value of the Cumulative Growth Factor
is:
[(1 + GR/100)DP - 1] / (GR/100)

Where GR is annual growth rate (%)
DP is the design period (years)
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 41 —
The formula is simply the summation of the series:

1 + (1 + GR/100) + (1 + GR/100)2 + + (1 + GR/100)DP -1
The terms in this series are simply the ratios of (traffic in year i) / (traffic in year 1).
4.5 Incorporation of Location-Specific Temperature Regime

There is (understandably, in the author’s view) often confusion about the roles and merits of using
Pavement Life Multipliers (PLMs) or, alternatively, Weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature
(WMAPT) to account for the influence of the location-specific temperature regime on the
performance of asphalt pavements. The reason for this confusion is very simple. There is no
guidance provided on how to determine a design temperature for a specific thickness of asphalt in
a specific location when it is subjected to a specific pattern of daily traffic. (While asphalt-surfaced
granular pavements are catered for by the use of PLMs (see below), asphalt-surfaced pavements
containing cemented material are not catered for.)
WMAPT was included in the Guide as a necessary input factor in the design procedure for asphalt
overlays.
It is to be interpreted as a ‘representative’ temperature for a thin (50 mm) asphalt surfacing.

Implicit in its ‘representative’ nature is an assumed diurnal distribution of traffic. Hence, WMAPT
can be considered as an appropriate design temperature for thin asphalt when subjected to normal
variations in traffic intensity throughout the day. Because of the lack of any alternative, it is
commonly used as the location-specific design temperature regardless of asphalt thickness and
daily traffic pattern.
PLMs provide a means whereby the performance of an asphalt-surfaced granular pavement in a

given location, and with a specific day/night traffic split, can be readily assessed from the
performance of the same pavement when the design asphalt temperature is 25°C.
For use in the General Mechanistic Procedure, the designer simply adjusts the value of design
number of Standard Axles for asphalt (NSA x 365 x GF in Section 7.5) by dividing it by the value for
PLM determined from Appendix B of the Guide. Having made this adjustment, the designer then
adopts 25°C as the design asphalt temperature and proceeds in the standard manner. For a
conventional mix subjected to highway-speed traffic, the Guide has adopted 2800 MPa as a
representative design asphalt modulus when the design asphalt temperature is 25°C. In essence,
use of the PLM brings into the design procedure the fatigue life of the asphalt applicable to the
specific location and day/night split of traffic. The PLMs are not applicable to pavements
containing cemented material because the dominant distress mode for such pavements is, for the
vast majority of situations, fatigue cracking of the cemented material (see relevant Example Design
Charts). Hence, adjustments to asphalt fatigue life are of little relevance.
Because the Example Design Charts for asphalt-surfaced granular pavements have a design
asphalt temperature of 25ºC (modulus 2800 MPa), PLMs may be readily used in conjunction with
these charts. More specifically, they are applicable to those portions of the charts where asphalt
thickness is less than (say) 200 mm AND the dominant distress mode is fatigue of asphalt. In use,
the designer simply enters the Chart with a revised value for traffic given by the design traffic/PLM.
The development and application of PLMs is fully covered in Youdale (1984d).
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 42 —
5 DEVELOPMENT OF OVERLAY DESIGN PROCEDURE

The overlay design procedure in the 1992 Guide (Chapter 10) is comprised of the following
elements:
A limit on the design value of the maximum deflection to contain permanent deformation
during the design period to within an acceptable range. This design maximum deflection
decreases with increasing design traffic and is in the Guide as Curve 1 of Figure 10.3. It
performs the same role as the subgrade strain criterion (for new pavements) and, in
essence, acts as a surrogate for the strain criterion.
A somewhat tighter limit on design maximum deflection – to be applied if the pavement
contains a layer of cemented material. Again, this design maximum deflection decreases
with design traffic (Curve 2 of Figure 10.3 in the Guide). Its role is to prevent fatigue cracking
of the cemented layer during the design period and, as such, it acts as a surrogate for
maximum tensile strain at the bottom of the cemented layer.
A limit on the design value of the Curvature Function (maximum deflection minus deflection
200 mm distant from the location of the maximum deflection) – to be applied when the
pavement is surfaced with asphalt or is to be surfaced with asphalt. This design Curvature
Function decreases with design traffic (Figure 10.4 of the Guide) and has the role of
preventing fatigue cracking in the asphalt during the design period. As such, it acts as a
surrogate for maximum tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt.
A basis for estimating the values of maximum deflection and Curvature Function for the
pavement when it is at its representative operating temperature (WMAPT) – from values
measured at another temperature (Figure 10.2 of the Guide).
Bases for estimating the reduction in values of deflection parameters resulting from
placement of an overlay, specifically:
— reduction in maximum deflection of a granular pavement due to placement of a
granular overlay (Figure 10.5)
— reduction in maximum deflection of a chip-sealed or asphalt-surfaced granular
pavement due to placement of an asphalt overlay – the reduction being that achieved
when the pavement temperature is 25°C (Figure 10.7)
— reduction in Curvature Function of a chip-sealed or asphalt-surfaced granular
pavement due to placement of an asphalt overlay –- applicable for the normal range of
pavement temperatures (Figure 10.8).
Having calculated the thickness of asphalt overlay necessary to reduce the maximum deflection to
its design value when the pavement temperature is 25°C, an adjustment is applied to this thickness
so that the required deflection reduction is achieved when the pavement is at its representative
operating temperature (WMAPT) (Figure 10.9).
The development of each of these elements is now discussed in turn.
5.1 Design Deflection Curves

Both Curves 1 and 2 in Figure 10.3 of the Guide have been taken directly from the IGPTD – with
minor extensions to the upper limit of design traffic from 3x107 to 108 ESAs. Hence, a review of
their origins entails a review of the basis for their incorporation in the IGPTD.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 43 —
The procedure in the IGPTD for design of overlays was based on the premise that all modes of
distress (permanent deformation within granular layers and the subgrade, fatigue cracking of
asphalt and cemented material) could be efficiently controlled by requiring that the maximum
surface deflection (as measured by the Benkelman Beam) be less than a specified tolerable value.
The tolerable value decreased as both the design traffic and composite stiffness of the pavement
structure (excluding the subgrade) increased. Four curves for tolerable deflection versus design
traffic (ESAs) were presented in the IGPTD for four classes of composite stiffness of the pavement
layers. The origins of these four curves, and the carry-over of two of them (the two extreme cases)
to the Guide, is well documented in Jameson (1996) – the relevant excerpt of which is attached as
Appendix C. Figure C.2 of Appendix C shows the four curves.
In the IGPTD, the labels attached to curves 2 and 4 are somewhat incomplete. A fuller account of
the intended use of the curves is provided in Table 2.2 of the IGPTD. This Table indicates that:
With respect to deflection requirements when a stabilised layer was used, no distinction was
made on the basis of the type of stabilising agent, be it cement or lime or bitumen.
Incorporation of a stabilised subbase (cement or lime or bitumen) in a chip-sealed granular
pavement moved the deflection requirement down from Curve 1 to Curve 2. (For asphalt
surfaced pavements, incorporation of a stabilised subbase did not affect the relevant curve.)
For a chip-sealed pavement, if this stabilised material was placed over, instead of under, the
granular material (hence forming the base instead of the subbase), then the deflection
requirement moved down from Curve 1 to Curve 4.
Hence, the Curve 2 label would be improved by adding the extension ‘OR stabilised subbase with
unbound base and thin bituminous surfacing’ and the Curve 4 label would be improved by
replacing the word ‘cemented’ with ‘stabilised’. Also, a note indicating that ‘stabilised’ refers to the
addition of cement OR lime OR bitumen is warranted.
5.1.1 Adoption of IGPTD Curve 1

In the Guide, the IGPTD Curve 1 has been adopted (with a minor extrapolation from design traffic
of 3 x 107 ESAs to design traffic of 108 ESAs) as the basis for restricting the accumulation of
permanent deformation in the pavement and subgrade to within acceptable limits during the design
life of the overlay.
In tracing the development of Curve 1, Jameson notes that Scala (1965) proposed a family of
curves, with the ‘family’ consisting of distinct curves for each subgrade CBR (applicable for all
cover thicknesses) or distinct curves for each thickness of cover (applicable for all subgrade
CBRs) (Appendix C, Figures C6 and C7). However, although being aware of Scala’s work, the
IGPTD drafting committee opted for a single curve (Curve 1).
Jameson further notes Youdale’s report to the WG (Youdale 1984c) indicating that a mechanistic
analysis supported the appropriateness of such a ‘family’, and also Anderson’s report (Anderson
1983b) to the WG reviewing UK experience. Anderson drew the following conclusions:
It can be concluded that the work of Lister et al. indicated no dependence of
tolerable deflections on pavement thickness for the pavements studied. It should
be noted that all pavements had asphalt surfacing and bases, but subbase
materials included granular and cemented materials.
Although Lister’s data indicates that the tolerable deflections for pavements
containing asphalt surfacing and base are independent of pavement thickness, no
clear conclusion can be drawn for other pavements, particularly unbound
pavements with thin bituminous seals (F1 type).
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 44 —
Lister’s data (ref. Figure 3.2) plot somewhere between curves 3 and below curve 4
of the NAASRA Interim Guide Figure 2.8 and between the curves for 300 mm and
500 mm thick pavements attached to G. Youdale’s report dated 20th December
1982. (Lister’s data was for pavements of thickness 300 mm-600 mm).
Jameson, after clarifying that Lister’s data had been corrected to account for variations in subgrade
CBR (and hence related to essentially a single subgrade CBR), made the following statement:
Consequently, contrary to the conclusions of the NAASRA Working Group, Lister’s
data does not support the use of a single design deflection for all granular
thicknesses and CBRs.
Bearing in mind that the intention of Anderson’s review was to shed light on appropriate tolerable
deflections for granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacings, and that part of his conclusions
was ‘... no clear conclusion can be drawn for other pavements, particularly unbound pavements
with thin bituminous seals (F1 type).’, the author cannot recall the WG drawing the imputed
conclusion.
Although the WG had (and, most probably, still has) strong reservations about the appropriateness
of adopting the IGPTD Curve 1 to control permanent deformation in granular and subgrade
materials – regardless of the subgrade CBR value and cover thickness – the Curve was regarded
by the then MEC Review Committee as well-supported by field experience and hence warranted
continued use. (This stance continues to find support.) For this reason, the Curve was adopted by
the WG for the role it plays in the Guide.
5.1.2 Adoption of IGPTD Curve 4

The role of Curve 4 in the IGPTD was to prevent premature fatigue cracking of a substantial layer
of bound material, be it asphalt or cemented material.
It is the author’s understanding that the curve had its origins in mechanistic analyses of pavements
with cemented bases, supplemented by limited observations of field performance.
The curve was adopted by the WG (as Curve 2 in Figure 10.3 of the Guide) as a control against
premature cracking in cemented material for the reason (as stated in the Guide) that no
satisfactory alternative measure, derived from a deflection bowl, had been established at that time.
There appears to have been little if any improvement in this area since that time.
5.2 The Curvature Function

As noted above, the IGPTD adopted the stance that control of maximum deflection would prevent
premature fatigue cracking of asphalt. This is well evidenced by the role of its Curves 1-4 for
tolerable deflection. For asphalt-surfaced granular pavements, the relevant curve depends solely
on asphalt thickness. Although there were strong views at the time that a deflection ratio
(commonly d150/d0, less commonly d200/d0) was superior to maximum deflection (d0) as a predictor
of tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer, the prevailing view was that its adoption at that
time was not warranted.
In the late 1970s, Anderson (1979) undertook a comprehensive analysis of a broad range of
asphalt-surfaced granular pavements, using elastic layer analysis, to assess the relative merits of a
variety of deflection bowl parameters in estimating asphalt strain. The work formed part of a
Master’s Degree undertaken at the University of California at Berkeley and was supervised by
Professor Carl Monismith. Anderson concluded that the difference between the maximum
deflection and the deflection at an offset of 200 mm (d0-d200), which he termed the Curvature
Function, was considerably superior to other candidate parameters in estimating asphalt strain.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 45 —
A comparison of the relative merits of d0, d200/d0 and d0-d200 is shown in Figure 5.1 (after Anderson
1984a).
Anderson’s study also provided corroboration of maximum deflection as an adequate predictor of

subgrade strain. His Master’s thesis entailed assembling an overlay design procedure on these
bases which was subsequently implemented by the (then) Country Roads Board (CRB 1983). The
procedure and its development are comprehensively reported in Anderson (1984a) and Anderson
and Kosky (1987).
The WG considered that the structure of this procedure was most appropriate for the design of
asphalt overlays, and adopted it for this purpose.
5.3 Temperature Correction for Deflection and Curvature

The following is the author’s understanding of the evolution of Figure 10.2 in the Guide – for
correction of measured deflections and curvatures to account for differences between temperature
at the time of measurement and WMAPT:
The format of the Figure is as initially developed by Anderson.
Anderson initially proposed three curves – for asphalt thicknesses of 25, 50 and 100 mm –
with the curves to be used for the correction of both maximum deflection and curvature.
These curves are included as Figure 11 in Anderson (1984a). They were based on elastic
layer analysis of pavements, with the dependency of asphalt stiffness on temperature
determined from the Shell nomographs. A loading time of 0.2 sec was adopted to represent
a test speed of 2 km/h. Details are provided in Anderson (1982b). Anderson notes in this
report that the resulting adjustments were compatible with those obtained from the
procedures in CRB Technical Bulletin 29 (CRB 1975) and in the IGPTD. These curves were
adopted for use by the CRB in its Interim Technical Bulletin on pavement strength evaluation
and rehabilitation (CRB 1983).
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 46 —
Source: Anderson 1984a
Figure 5.1: Predictive ability of deflection parameters
The WG, in reviewing the correction factors associated with these curves, undertook to make
some comparisons with SRA field experience in Queensland and New South Wales (Gordon
1984). Also, the results of further elastic layer analyses (MRDQ 1984) were considered.
The information from both these sources related only to maximum deflection.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 47 —
Following a review of this additional information and a re-examination of his original data by
Anderson (1984b), the WG developed revised curves for the correction of maximum
deflection while retaining the original curves for correction of curvature. The revised curves
are those for asphalt thicknesses of 50, 100 and 150 mm in Figure 10.3 of the Guide. The
adjustments determined from the revised curves are substantially less than those derived
from the original curves.
Jameson (1985), in an in-house review for the RCA (formerly CRB) of its then temperature
correction procedures (Anderson’s original chart for both maximum deflections and
curvature), undertook an extensive field study of the effect of temperature on both maximum
deflection and curvature for pavements with asphalt thickness ranging from 55 to 300 mm.
His conclusions were:
— For correction of maximum deflection, the revised curves produced by the WG were
appropriate for the asphalt thicknesses they encompassed (up to 150 mm)
— For correction of maximum deflection for thick asphalt pavements, Anderson’s original
curve for 100 mm of asphalt fitted the data well
— Correction factors for curvature were similar to those for maximum deflection – hence,
the one correction chart would satisfy both requirements
Jameson’s recommendations were in line with his conclusions and were supported by Colin Kosky
(the then Pavements Engineer). The WG reviewed Jameson’s report and endorsed its conclusions
and recommendations, resulting in the chart as presented in Figure 10.3 of the Guide.
5.4 Reduction in Deflection Parameters due to Overlay Placement

5.4.1 Reduction in Maximum Deflection due to a Granular Overlay
Figure 10.5 of the Guide provides a basis for determining the maximum deflection of a granular
pavement after placement of a granular overlay, given the deflection before overlay and the
overlay thickness. The family of lines plotted are represented by the equation:
da/db=0.94(T/25)
Where
da = deflection after overlay
db = deflection before overlay
T = overlay thickness(mm).
As such, they represent a deflection reduction of 6% per 25 mm of overlay thickness.
The author’s reconstruction of events leading to the adoption of 6% per 25 mm is as follows:

The IGPTD adopted 10% per 45 mm. This is equivalent to 5.7% per 25 mm.
DMR, NSW adopted the IGPTD chart for its pavement design manual (Form 76).
Youdale (1980a), based on CIRCLY analyses, recommended that DMR change to 3.5% per
25 mm.
Wyman (1981), based on elastic layer analyses (Chevron), reported to MRD, Queensland
that 4% per 25 mm was appropriate.
The May 1982 Meeting of the WG generally agreed that 3.5% per 25 mm was appropriate.
Youdale (1982b) undertook further CIRCLY analyses, concluding that 3.5% per 25 mm be
adopted for the Guide.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 48 —
Potter and Donald (1984) reported the forthcoming Guide would adopt 4% per 25 mm.
It is the author’s (somewhat hazy) recollection that:

RCA, Victoria, remained uneasy with the values of 3.5-4% per 25 mm, considering them to
be too low
The WG later accepted the RCA stance, opting initially to retain the IGPTD relationship and,
finally, ‘rounding’ it to 6% per 25 mm.
5.4.2 Reduction in Maximum Deflection (at 25°C) due to an Asphalt Overlay

Figure 10.7 of the Guide provides a basis for estimating – when the asphalt temperature is 25°C –
the deflection after placement of an asphalt overlay, from deflection before overlay and overlay
thickness. The Figure is based on a deflection reduction of 10% per 25 mm of overlay. The
information available to the WG which led to its adoption of this percentage reduction is as follows:
In the IGPTD, percentage reductions per 25 mm ranged from 12 to 6 depending on climatic
region. The percentages applicable to Sydney and Melbourne were 8 and 10 respectively
(WMAPTs for Sydney and Melbourne are 28.0 and 24.2 respectively).
Youdale (1980b), on the basis of elastic layer analyses, recommended 8% for areas of
typical usage of asphalt within NSW and 10% in cooler areas.
Anderson (1982b) adopted 10% on the basis of elastic layer analyses supported by field
data. Figure 11 of Anderson (1984a) refers.
Wyman (1982), on the basis of field observations, recommended percentage reductions per
25 mm ranging from 12 (for 50 mm overlay thickness) to 20 (for 100 mm overlay thickness).
Gordon (1982) presented results of elastic analyses which indicated that a value of 5.5% was
appropriate.
The WG sought field data from HD SA, MRD WA, MRD Tas, and DTW NT (Anderson
1982c). HD SA responded with data which supported a value of 9% (Cops 1982).
After consideration of this assembled information, it was apparent to the WG that adoption of a
value up to 10% reduction in deflection (at 25°C) for each 25 mm of asphalt overlay was consistent
with the available data.
5.4.3 Reduction in Curvature Function due to an Asphalt Overlay

Figure 10.8 of the Guide provides a basis for estimating the reduction in Curvature Function due to
placement of an overlay. The Figure is based on a 20% reduction per 25 mm of overlay. The
value was determined from elastic layer analyses undertaken by Anderson during the development
of the overlay design procedure. (Anderson 1984a).
5.5 Adjustment of Asphalt Overlay Thickness to Allow for Locality

Temperature
Figure 10.9 of the Guide provides a basis for correcting the value of overlay thickness which
provides the required reduction in maximum deflection when the asphalt is at 25°C to a thickness
value which will provide this same reduction when the asphalt is at its operating temperature
(WMAPT). The Figure incorporates the temperature dependency of deflection reduction in a more
quantified manner than Table 2.3 in the IGPTD. The Figure was originally developed by Anderson
(1984a) for a base WMAPT of 20°C and subsequently re-drawn for a base WMAPT of 25°C. The
author has no record of the underlying basis.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 49 —
For reasons indicated in the Guide, no correction for locality temperature is applied to the value of
overlay thickness which provides the required reduction in curvature when the asphalt is at 25°C.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 50 —
REFERENCES
Anderson, DT 1979, ‘The design of AC overlays for flexible highway pavements’, MSc Thesis, University of
California at Berkeley.
Anderson, DT 1981, ‘The basis of the Country Roads Board pavement design process’ Local Government
Engineering Conference Melbourne, Australia.
Anderson, DT 1982a, ‘Study of asphalt fatigue relationship: report to working group: October 16’.
Anderson, DT 1982b, ‘Pavement analysis and asphalt overlay design procedures: report to working group:
April 26’.
Anderson, DT 1982c, ‘Results of a survey of SRAs seeking information on the effect of asphalt overlays on
pavement deflections: report to working group: December 29’.
Anderson, DT 1983a, ‘Review of NAASRA IGPTD: report to working group: November 16’.
Anderson, DT 1983b, ‘Notes on the effect of pavement thickness on tolerable deflection: report to working
group’.
Anderson, DT 1984a, ‘A new approach to asphalt overlay design’ ARRB Conference, 12th, 1984, Hobart,
Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic., vol.12, no. 3, pp. 54-67.
Anderson, DT 1984b, ‘Effect of asphalt temperature on pavement deflection and asphalt overlays: report to
working group: February 29’.
Anderson, DT and Kosky, CK 1987, ‘Advances in asphalt overlay design procedures’, International
conference on structural design of asphalt pavements, 6th, 1987, vol.1, pp. 748-6.
Angell, D 1988, Technical basis for the Pavement Design Guide, report RP 1265, Pavements Branch,
Department of Main Roads, Qld.
Austroads 1992, Pavement design: a guide to the structural design of road pavements, AP-17/92, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 1997, ‘Revision note for pavement design: a guide to the structural design of road pavements’,
Austroads Pavement Research Group.
Baran, E & Aubrey, SR 1978, Preliminary report on pavement thickness design curves for Queensland
conditions based on elastic layer methods, report RP531, Materials Branch, Department of Main
Roads, Qld.
Black, DJ 1977, ‘Proposed NAASRA publication: Manual of Pavement Thickness Design’, Letter from
NAASRA Engineer-Secretary to ARRB, May.
Britton, AT 1947, ‘Flexible pavements: design and selection’, Highway Research Board Meeting, 27th,
Washington DC, United States, Highway Research Board, Washington DC.
Cops, PL 1982, ‘Information forwarded in response report to working group: December 29’ in Anderson DT,
‘Results of a survey of SRAs seeking information on the effect of asphalt overlays on pavement
deflections: report to working group: December 29’.
Country Roads Board, Victoria 1945, ‘Chief Engineer’s report’ in Annual report, 32nd, Country Roads Board,
Melbourne, Vic, pp.28-36.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 51 —
Country Roads Board, Victoria 1949, The design of flexible pavements, Technical Bulletin No 4, Country
Roads Board, Melbourne, Vic.
Country Roads Board, Victoria 1975, Deflection testing using the Benkelman beam, Technical Bulletin No
29, Country Roads Board, Melbourne, Vic.
Country Roads Board, Victoria 1983, ‘Pavement strength evaluation and rehabilitation’, Interim Technical
Bulletin, Country Roads Board, Melbourne, Vic.
Davis, EH 1949, ‘The California Bearing Ratio Method for the design of flexible roads and runways’,
Géotechnique, vol. 14, pp. 249-63.
George, HP and Gittoes, CA 1959, Report to Permanent International Association of Road Congresses
(PIARC) Congress, XIth, Rio de Janeiro,, PIARC, Paris, France, Section 2, Question VI, Part A
Gerrard, C M 1969, Table of stresses, strains and displacements in two-layer elastic systems under various
traffic loads, Special Report, SR No 3, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Gerrard, C M and Wardle, LJ 1976, Tables of stresses, strains and displacement in three-layer elastic
systems under various traffic loads Special Report, SR No 4, Australian Road Research Board,
Vermont South, Vic.
Gordon, RG 1982, ‘Figure 15 from Report RP 649’, Materials Branch, Department of Main Roads, Qld.
Gordon, RG 1984, ‘Summary plots submitted to the working group for its consideration: report to working
group’.
Heukelom, W & Klomp, AGJ 1962, ‘Dynamic testing as a means of controlling pavements during and after
construction’, International conference on the structural design of asphalt pavements, Ann Arbor,
United States, pp. 667-79.
Irick, PE & Hudson, WR 1964, Guidelines for satellite studies of pavement performance, NCHRP Report No
2, Highway Research Board, Washington DC.
Jameson, GW 1985, ‘Temperature adjustments of pavement deflections and curvatures: report Group
Manager-Materials: April 16’, report 58M171.
Jameson, GW 1995, ‘Response of cementitious pavement materials to repeated loadings’ contract report RI
949, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Jameson, GW 1996, Origins of Austroads design procedures for granular pavements, research report ARR
No 292, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Jameson, GW, Dash, DM, Tharan, Y & Vertessy, NJ 1995, ‘The performance of deep-lift in-situ pavement
recycling under accelerated loading: the Cooma ALF Trial 1994’ APRG report No 11, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Jameson, GW, Sharp, KG and Yeo, R 1992, Cement-treated crushed rock pavement fatigue under
accelerated loading: The Mulgrave Victoria, ALF Trial, 1989/1991, research report ARR No 229,
Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 52 —
Kenis, WJ, Sherwood, JA, & McMahon, TF 1981, ‘Verification and application of the VESYS structural
subsystem’, International conference on structural design of asphalt pavements, 5th, Ann Arbor, United
States.
Litwinowicz, A 1982, Fatigue characteristics of cement treated materials: an overview, report RP 752,
Materials Branch, Department of Main Roads Dept, Qld.
Litwinowicz, A 1984, Private Communication to Author March
MacLean, DJ et al, 1959, Report to Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC)
Congress, XIth, Rio de Janeiro, PIARC, Section 1, Question 1, Part 7
Main Roads Department, Queensland 1982, Fatigue characteristics of cement treated materials: an
overview, report RP 533, Materials Branch, QDMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Main Roads Department, Queensland 1984, Report on temperature correction factors for rebound
Benkelman Beam deflections, report RP 826, Materials Branch, QDMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Mitchell, JK 1976, ‘The properties of cement stabilised soils’, Workshop on materials and methods for road,
rail and reclamation works, Leura, NSW, University of NSW.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1979, Interim guide to pavement thickness design,
NAASRA, Sydney.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1987, Pavement design: a guide to the structural
design of road pavements, NAASRA, Sydney.
Otte, E 1978, ‘A structural design procedure for cement-treated layers in pavements’, DScEng, Thesis,
University of Pretoria.
Porter, OJ 1938, ‘The preparation of subgrades’, Highway Research Board Meeting, 18th, Washington DC,
United States, Highway Research Board, Washington DC, pp. 324-31.
Potter, DW 1981, ‘Suggested research areas in flexible pavement design’, ‘NAASRA/ARRB seminar on
heavily trafficked flexible pavements’, internal report AIR 000-168, Australian Road Research Board,
Vermont South, Vic.
Potter, DW 1997, ‘Appropriate laboratory fatigue testing of asphalt for Australia and its role in Australian
pavement design’, working document R97/021, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Potter, DW & Donald, GS 1985, ‘Revision of NAASRA Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design’,
Workshop on structural design of road pavements, ARRB Conference, 12th, Hobart, Australian Road
Research Board, Vermont South, Vic
Pretorius, PC 1969, ‘Design considerations for pavements containing soil-cement bases’, PhD thesis,
University of California, Berkeley.
Pretorius, PC & Monismith, CL 1972, ‘Fatigue crack formation and propagation in pavements containing soil-
cement bases’, Highway Research Record, no. 407.
Rallings, RA 1997, APRG workshop on structural behaviour of unbound granular pavements. report APRG
97/03DA, Austroads Pavement Research Group.
Road Research Laboratory 1955, Construction of housing estate roads using granular base and subbase
materials, road note 20, HMSO, London, United Kingdom.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 53 —
Rodway, B 1997, ‘Going ‘round in Circlies’, Geomechanics Society Pavements Symposium, Sydney.
Scala, AJ 1965, ‘CBR design method deflection dependency’, internal report AIR 010-2, Australian Road
Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Scala, AJ 1970a, ‘Comparison of the response of pavements to single and tandem axle loads’ ARRB
Conference, 5th, Canberra, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic, vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
231-52.
Scala, AJ 1970b, ‘Prediction of repetitions on roads ‘, internal report, Australian Road Research Board,
Vermont South, Vic.
Scala, AJ 1977, ‘Preliminary study of a pavement management system’, internal report, AIR 175-1,
Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd 1978, Shell pavement design manual: asphalt pavement and overlays
for road traffic, Shell, London, United Kingdom
Sparks, GH (ed.), 1981, ‘NAASRA/ARRB seminar on heavily trafficked flexible pavements’, internal report
AIR 000-168, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Sparks, GH & Potter, DW 1982, ‘An investigation into the relationship between California Bearing Ratio and
modulus for two clays’, internal report AIR 295-1, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South,
Vic.
Stevenson, JM 1976, Pavements study report T4, ERVL NAASRA.
Vuong, B 1992, ‘Prediction versus performance of a granular pavement tested with the Accelerated Loading
Facility ALF’, Symposium on prediction versus performance in geotechnical engineering, Bangkok, AA
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Walker, RN, Paterson, WDO, Freeme, CR & Marais, CP 1977, ‘The South African mechanistic pavement
design procedure’, International conference on structural design of asphalt pavements, 4th, vol. 2.
Wardle, LJ 1977, Program CIRCLY User’s Manual, CSIRO Division of Applied Geomechanics.
Wyman, AC 1981, ‘The development of asphalt and granular overlay design and tolerable deflection levels
by elastic analysis Report RP 649 Materials Branch, Main Roads Department, Queensland
Wyman, AC 1982, Empirical Investigation into the development of an asphalt overlay design method for local
conditions, report RP 716, Materials Branch, Department of Main Roads, Qld.
Yandell, WO 1981, ‘Applications of the mechano-lattice analysis in materials engineering’, Australian

Conference on Engineering Materials, 2nd, Sydney, University of New South Wales, pp 401-19.
Youdale, GP 1978, Repeated load triaxial tests on granular pavement materials, materials research
laboratory test report, no RS21 PTII, Materials Branch, DMR.
Youdale, GP 1980a, ‘MRD Form 76: pavement thickness design, January 1980: reduction of surface
deflection due to overlay with granular material: report to Materials and Research Engineer’, DMR.
Youdale, GP 1980b, ‘MRD Form 76: pavement thickness design January 1980: reduction of pavement
surface deflection due to overlay with asphaltic concrete, or replacement of granular material with
asphaltic concrete: report to Materials and Research Engineer’, DMR.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 54 —
Youdale, GP 1981, ‘Materials testing for the analysis of heavily trafficked flexible pavements’
‘NAASRA/ARRB seminar on heavily trafficked flexible pavements’, internal report AIR 000-168,
Youdale, GP 1982a, ‘Investigation into the deflection design criteria for granular pavement overlays: report to
working group’, December.
Youdale, GP 1982b, ‘Investigation of granular overlay deflection reduction factors: report to working group’,
November.
Youdale, GP 1983, ‘Investigation of the variation of stiffness with depth of a granular layer under variable
thickness of asphaltic concrete: report to working group’, July and October.
Youdale, GP 1984a, ‘Investigation of the effects of and the interaction between the stress dependency of
moduli and the anisotropy of granular pavement materials on the results of pavement analysis using
CIRCLY: report to working group’, April.
Youdale, GP 1984b, ‘Investigation of the variation of stiffness with depth of a granular layer over a bound
subbase layer: reports to working group’, March.
Youdale, GP 1984, ‘Review of limiting subgrade strain criterion: submission to NAASRA working group on
the revision of NAASRA Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design’ IGPTD, April.
Youdale, GP 1984d, ‘The design of pavements surfaced with asphalt for particular temperature
environments’, ARRB Conference, 12th, Hobart, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South,
Vic, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 78-88.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 55 —
References Reviewed by Working Group in Assessing Relevance of

Anisotropy
Allen, JJ & Thompson, MR 1974, ‘Resilient response of granular materials subjected to time-dependent
lateral stresses’, Transportation Research Record, no. 510, pp. 1-13.
Barrett, JR & Smith, DM 1976, ‘Stress history effects in base-course materials’ ARRB Conference, 8th, Perth,
Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 30-9,48-9.
Dehlen, GL & Monismith, CL 1969, Effect on non-linear material response on the behaviour of pavements
under traffic, research report 122, NITRR, South Africa.
Freeme, CR 1970, Anisotropic and non-linear characterization of bituminous mixtures: part 1, RB/17/70,
NITRR, South Africa.
Freeme, CR 1971, Application of sonic and ultrasonic test methods to the measurement of elastic moduli of
pavement materials, RB/2/7, NITRR, South Africa.
Gerrard, CM & Wardle, LJ 1973, Some aspects of the design of surface pavement layers, research paper
208, CSIRO, Melbourne.
Gerrard, CM & Wardle, LJ 1980, ‘Design of surface pavement layers’, Australian Road Research, vol. 10, no.
2, pp. 3-15.
Moore, PJ 1980, Behaviour of layered pavements, special report no. 19, Australian Road Research Board,
Vermont South, Vic.
Morgan, JR and Gerrard, C 1973, ‘Anisotropy and non-linearity in sand properties’, International conference
on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, 8th, pp. 287-92.
Paterson, WDO 1974, Evaluating the structural response of a pavement and the moduli of materials: a
review, RP/1/74, NITRR, South Africa.
Richards, BG 1974, The analysis of flexible road pavements in the Australian environment: stresses, strains
and displacements under traffic loading, Division of Applied Geomechanics technical paper 20,
CSIRO, Melbourne.
Thrower, EN 1978, Stress invariants and mechanical testing of pavement materials, laboratory report 810,
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, United Kingdom.l
Wallace, K & Monismith, CL 1980, ‘Diametral modulus testing on non-linear pavement materials’, Journal of
the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, vol. 49, pp. 633-52.
White, PD 1979, ‘An investigation of repeated triaxial loading tests in relation to pavement performance’,
MEng thesis, University of Melbourne.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 56 —
Bibliography for Fatigue of Asphalt

Brown, SF, Pell, PS, & Stock, AF 1977, ‘The application of simplified, fundamental design procedures for
flexible pavements’ International conference on the structural design of asphalt pavements, 4th, Ann
Arbor, United States.
Deen, RC, Southgate RF & Havens, JH 1972, ‘Structural analysis of bituminous concrete pavements’,
Highway Research Record, no 407, pp.22-35.
Kingham, RI 1971, Fatigue criteria developed from the AAHSO Road Test Data Asphalt Institute, RR 71-1.
Monismith, CL 1978, ‘Design and construction of flexible pavements: notes of residential course: Leura,
University of New South Wales’.
Paterson, WDO & Maree, JH 1978, An interim mechanistic procedure for the structural design of asphalt
pavements, RP/5/78, NITRR, South Africa.
Pell, PS & Taylor IF 1969, ‘Asphaltic road materials in fatigue’, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, vol. 38, pp.371-422.
Santucci, LE 1977, ‘Thickness design procedure for asphalt and emulsified asphalt mixes’ International
conference on the structural design of asphalt pavements, 4th, Ann Arbor, United States.
Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd 1978, Shell pavement design manual: asphalt pavement and overlays
for road traffic, Shell, London, United Kingdom
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 57 —
APPENDIX A ORIGINS OF UNBOUND GRANULAR

THICKNESS CHART
The following is an excerpt from Origins of the Austroads Design Procedures for Granular
Pavements (Jameson 1996). The Figure and Table numbers have been changed to reflect that
the excerpt is Appendix A of this report.
The Austroads (1992) thickness design chart for granular pavements with thin bituminous
surfacings is shown in Figure A. 1. The origins of this chart can be traced back to the Californian
State Highways Department CBR method of pavement design (Porter 1942). From 1928-1942, the
Department examined the quality and thicknesses of base, subbase and subgrade materials under
both failed and sound sections of flexible pavements throughout the California highway system.
From these data, curves were formulated for determining the total depth of construction (base,
subbase and imported fill) required to carry the anticipated traffic. The resulting design curves are
given in Figure A. 2.
In 1945 the Victorian Country Roads Board (CRB) proposed a tentative thickness design chart
Figure A. 3 which seems to have been based on the Californian design curves (Gawith and Perrin
1962). This design procedure was an improvement on the 1942 Californian procedure in that it
quantified the traffic, provided factors which allowed for transverse distribution of traffic, and a
factor to correct thickness for rainfall. This method was refined further when the CRB issued
Technical Bulletin 4 in 1949. This was used by the CRB until Technical Bulletin 21 was issued in
1960, as discussed below.
Figure A. 1: Austroads design chart for granular pavements with

thin bituminous surfacings (Figure 8.4 of Austroads 1992)
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 58 —
Source: RRL (1952) Porter (1942)
Figure A. 2: California State Highway Department 1940s CBR method thickness design curve
Source: Gawith and Perrin (1962)
Figure A. 3: 1945 Victorian Country Roads Board tentative thickness design curves
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 59 —
In the late 1940s the U.K. Road Research Laboratory (RRL) compared the total pavement
thicknesses required by the Californian CBR method with actual thicknesses of roads of various
condition (Davis 1949). The results are shown in Figure A.4. Data was examined from seven sites
where at least part of the road was distressed due to deformation of the subgrade. In making the
comparison with the Californian curves it was considered that:
the Californian design curve for a maximum wheel load of 7,000 lb was equivalent to less
than 50 commercial vehicles per day (light traffic)
the Californian design curve for a maximum wheel load of 9,000 lb was equivalent to medium
traffic of 50 to 300 commercial vehicles per day (medium traffic )
the Californian design curve for a maximum wheel load of 12,000 lb was equivalent to more
than 300 commercial vehicles per day (heavy traffic).
Davis concluded that:

Evidence of the validity of the design curve is provided by the fact that all ‘critical
condition’ points lie close to the 45° line, all the ‘definite failure’ points lie below the
line and all the ‘no failure’ points lie above the line. The number of points in this
figure Figure A. 4 is hardly sufficient to provide conclusive evidence and further
investigations of this type are desirable.
Source: Davis 1949
Figure A. 4: Early U.K. RRL data regarding the validity of the Californian CBR method of pavement design
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 60 —
Several years later MacLean (1954) reported that the design curves A-F in Figure A. 5 were being
considered for use by the RRL. According to MacLean:
…The form of these curves is based on a consideration of the results of full-scale
road experiments carried out by the Laboratory and of information supplied by
county road authorities who have applied the Californian bearing ratio method of
design in normal road construction. Six curves A, B, C, D, E and F are shown
relating the thickness of construction to the Californian bearing ratio of the sub-soil
for roads carrying six different intensities of traffic. This classification of traffic into
6 groups is based on the number of vehicles using a road per day having a loaded
weight exceeding 3 tonnes.’
Curve A is a new curve which has been proposed for roads carrying 0-15 vehicles per day
weighing more than 3 tons. It refers to cul-de-sacs on housing estates and to isolated roads built
in connection with limited private housing development.
Curve B is another new curve for roads carrying 15-45 vehicles per day weighing more than 3 tons.
It refers to minor through roads on housing estates which carry a fair amount of traffic during the
period of house construction but which carry no heavy lorry traffic or public service vehicles
subsequently.
Curve C for roads carrying 45-150 vehicles per day weighing more than 3 tons, has been in use for
many years. It applies to lightly trafficked county roads and to roads on housing estates carrying
up to 50 public service vehicles per day together with a fair number of tradesmen’s vehicles.
Curve D has also been in use for some time and is for roads carrying 150-450 vehicles per day
weighing more than 3 tons. It refers to county roads carrying a medium intensity of traffic and to
main roads in urban areas where from 50-150 public service vehicles per day are operating.
Curve E, for roads carrying 450-1500 vehicles per day weighing more than 3 tons, has also been in
use for many years. It refers to principal shopping streets in large towns and to main county roads.
Curve F is another new curve for heavily-trafficked truck roads carrying 1500-4500 vehicles per
day weighing more than 3 tons. The need for this curve has become apparent as the result of
investigations of structurally weak sections of roads and of full-scale experiments on truck roads.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 61 —
Source: MacLean 1954 and 1959
Figure A. 5: Proposed CBR design curves for different classes of roads
It should be noted that curves C, D and E were very similar to Californian CBR design curves
(Figure A.2). Note that the traffic loadings associated with these three curves differ from those
initially adopted by Davis (1949). In 1959 MacLean reported that curve G was being used for new
roads ‘which may carry traffic in excess of 4500 commercial vehicles per day.’
In 1955 the RRL published Road Note 20 Construction of Housing-Estate Roads using Granular
Bases and Subbase Materials. For such roads design curves A-E were proposed.
As stated by Leigh and Croney (1972), the Figure A5 design curves:

...provided a means for estimating the total thickness of construction necessary for
various traffic and foundation conditions, but gave no guidance on the relative
thicknesses of surfacing, base and subbase.
Accordingly, a series of full-scale experiments on in-service roads was conducted to examine the
performance of roads with variations in materials and layer thicknesses. By 1960 sufficient data
was available to issue preliminary design standards and these were contained in RRL’s Road
Note 29 A Guide to the Structural Design of Pavements for New Roads, (Road Research
Laboratory 1960). This document superseded Road Note 20 for roads with a traffic loading of
more than 150 commercial vehicles per day. In 1965 the second edition of Road Note 29 was
extended to lightly-trafficked roads and the use in Britain of Road Note 20 presumably ceased.
In 1960, the CRB adopted (CRB 1960) the 1959 RRL design curves Figure A. 5. These curves
were revised in 1969 (CRB 1969) to provide higher minimum pavement thicknesses Figure A. 6. It
was also specified that the curves were only applicable for pavements in rural areas, that is,
granular pavements with a sprayed seal surface.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 62 —
Source: adapted from MacLean 1959

Figure A. 6: 1969 Country Roads Board pavement thickness design curves for roads in rural areas
At that time traffic loadings were expressed in terms of:

the average number of commercial vehicles (CV) exceeding three tons in weight
(approximately this means vehicles with dual tyres on one or more axles) which the
road is expected to carry in 24 hours at some time towards the end of its life, e.g. in
about 20 years time. This is the total traffic in both directions of a two lane
pavement or on both carriageways of a divided highway.’ (CRB 1969).
Using this design commercial vehicle volume, the road was considered to be in one of seven RRL
traffic categories as indicated in Table A 1.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 63 —
Table A 1: Traffic loading characterisation

Traffic Two-way Two-way One-way
category CV/day CV/20 years ESAs/20 years
A 0-15 7 x 104 3 x 104
B 15-45 2 x 105 1 x 105
C 45-150 7 x 105 3 x 105
D 150-450 2 x 106 1 x 106
E 450-1500 7 x 106 3 x 106
F 1500-4500 2 x 107 1 x 107
G >4500 7 x 107 3 x 107
When the granular thickness chart was adopted by NAASRA (Figure 2.2 of NAASRA 1979), the
characterisation of traffic loading was converted from traffic categories to cumulative equivalent
standard axles (ESAs) over the design period. Based on Black’s (1977) explanatory notes it
seems the following conversion procedure was adopted:
The mid-range values of two-way CVs towards the end of the design period were divided by
1.5 to derive the two-way CVs on opening (the factor of 1.5 is equivalent to a compound
growth rate of 3% over 10-15 years; this factor appears to have been obtained from CRB
Technical Bulletin 21).
Assuming a growth rate of 3%, the two-way CVs over 20 years were determined.
The traffic was equally divided between the two directions to estimate the one-way CVs over
20 years.
One commercial vehicle equalled one Equivalent Standard Axle.
The cumulative ESA values so determined are given in Table A 1.
It should be noted that the minimum pavement thicknesses of the NAASRA granular thickness
chart (Figure A. 7) are greater than those derived from the RRL (1959) curves and different from
the CRB (1969) values. These minimum thicknesses only influence the thickness adopted for the
unusual cases where a design subgrade CBR exceeds 15. The Austroads 1992 granular
thickness chart (Figure A. 1) is similar to the NAASRA, except for changes to the minimum
pavement thickness and the design traffic range.
A limited survey (Potter et al. 1996) of experienced engineers on design reliability has indicated
that pavements designed with the Austroads (1992) granular thickness chart have a low probability
of premature distress. There was a wide scatter of responses in the survey with an average
response being that pavements designed in accordance with the chart had about a 90% probability
of exceeding the design traffic.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 64 —
Figure A. 7: NAASRA 1979 design chart
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 65 —
REFERENCES
Sydney, NSW.
Davis, EH 1949, ‘The California Bearing Ratio Method for the design of flexible roads and runways’,
Géotechnique, vol. 14, pp. 249-63.
Dorman, GM & Metcalf, CT 1965, ‘Design curves for flexible pavements based on layered system theory’,
Highway Research Board, no. 71, pp. 69-84.
Gawith, AH & Perrin, CC 1962, ‘Development in the design and construction of bituminous surfaced
pavements in the State of Victoria, Australia’, International conference on the structural design of
asphalt pavements.
Leigh, JV & Croney, D 1972, ‘The current design procedures for flexible pavements in Britain’, International
conference on the structural design of asphalt pavements., 3rd, pp. 1039-48.
MacLean, DJ 1954, ‘The application of soild mechanics to road and engineering foundations’ Jnl. Inst. Of
Munic. Eng. 81(7), pp 323-339.
MacLean, DJ et al, 1959, Report to Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC)
Congress, XIth, Rio de Janeiro, PIARC, Section 1, Question 1, Part 7.
NAASRA, Sydney.
Porter, OJ 1942, ‘Foundations for flexible pavements’, Highway Research Board Meeting, 22nd, Washington
DC, United States, Highway Research Board, Washington DC, pp. 100-36.
Potter, DW, Jameson, GW, Makarov, A, Moffatt, MA and Cropley, SM 1996, ‘A basis for incorporating
reliability in the Austroads pavement design procedures’, working document TI96/014, ARRB
Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Road Research Laboratory 1952, Soil mechanics for road engineers, HMSO, London, United Kingdom.
Road Research Laboratory 1955, Construction of housing estate roads using granular base and subbase
materials, road note 20, HMSO, London, United Kingdom.
Road Research Laboratory 1960, A guide to the structural design of flexible and rigid pavements for new
roads, road note 29, HSMO, London, United Kingdom
the revision of NAASRA Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design’ IGPTD.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 66 —
APPENDIX B DMR NSW PROCEDURE FOR PAVEMENT

THICKNESS DESIGN IN 1947 – EXCERPT
FROM BRITTON (1947)
B.1 Pavement Thickness
The effective thickness of pavement required over a given subgrade or of upper courses over a
given subbase or base course, assuming normal and satisfactory drainage and proper compaction
and that a bituminous surface or upper course is to be provided, is in general, to be computed two
ways, as follows:
(a) Grading rule

Disregard all material retained on ¾ in. square sieve.
Compute the following ratios:

Title Ratio (per cent) of all Passing To all Passing
R Passing ¾ in. sq. sieve but retained No. 7 B.S. ¾ in. sq
A Passing No. 36 B.S. No. 7 B.S.
B Passing No. 200 B.S. No. 36 B.S.
C Less than 0.0135 mm. No. 200 B.S.
Let D, E and F be departures of A, B and C respectively outside range 40 to 60, e.g.

D = A – 60 if A is greater than 60
= 0 if A is from 40 to 60
= 40 – A if A is less than 40
If neither A, B, nor C, is less than 40; compute the sum of D + E + F.
If neither A nor B is less than 40, but C is; compute the same sum but count not more than 20
for F.
If A is not less than 40 but B is; compute the same sum but count not more than 20 for E + F.
If A is less than 40; compute the same sum if it is less than 20, otherwise count D + E + F as 20.
To the sum so determined, add one half the plastic index and subtract one quarter R. Call this final
total T.
Effective cover required in inches is then:

0.15 T for Heavy Loading (Max. wheel = 6 English Tons or, say = 13,500 lb.)
0.12 T for Normal Loading(Max. wheel = 4 English Tons or, say = 9,000 lb.)
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 67 —
(b) Soil moisture relations rule

Let
U = Upper solid limit
= PL if plastic
= LL if non-plastic
S = Linear shrinkage from LL of Pass No.7 B.S. Portion in percent of original length
W = Max. dry weight (lb. per cu ft.) by standard Proctor compaction method
Effective cover required in inches is then:

32 + 0.16 U + 0.27 S – 0.24 W for heavy loading.
26 + 0.13 U + 0.22 S – 0.195 W for normal loading.
Table B.1 and Table B.2 cover all usual cases.
Table B.1: Heavy traffic loading

U 0.16 U S 0.27 S W 32-0.24 W W 32-0.24 W
11 1.76 1 0.27 85 11.60 109 5.84
12 1.92 2 0.54 86 11.36 110 5.60
13 2.08 3 0.81 87 11.12 111 5.36
14 2.24 4 1.08 88 10.88 112 5.12
15 2.40 5 1.35 89 10.64 113 4.88
16 2.56 6 1.62 90 10.40 114 4.64
17 2.72 7 1.89 91 10.16 115 4.40
18 2.88 8 2.16 92 9.92 116 4.16
19 3.04 9 2.43 93 9.68 117 3.92
20 3.20 10 2.70 94 9.44 118 3.68
21 3.36 11 2.97 95 9.20 119 3.44
22 3.52 12 3.24 96 8.96 120 3.20
23 3.68 13 3.51 97 8.72 121 2.96
24 3.84 14 3.78 98 8.48 122 2.72
25 4.00 15 4.05 99 8.24 123 2.48
26 4.16 16 4.32 100 8.00 124 2.24
27 4.32 17 4.59 101 7.76 125 2.00
28 4.48 18 4.86 102 7.52 126 1.76
29 4.64 19 5.13 103 7.28 127 1.52
30 4.80 20 5.40 104 7.04 128 1.28
31 4.96 21 5.67 105 6.80 129 1.04
32 5.12 22 5.94 106 6.56 130 0.80
33 5.28 23 6.21 107 6.32 131 0.56
34 5.44 24 6.48 108 6.08 132 0.32
(c) Application of Rules

If the dispersion fails, the ratios A, B and C are not determined and the grading rule cannot be
applied. The S.M.R. rule only is taken into account.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 68 —
If the dispersion does not fail:

If the adverse constituents are present in considerable quantity the grading rule does not
apply and the S.M.R. rule only is taken into account.
In A3 soils7 free from appreciable adverse constituents S.M.R. rule does not apply and
grading rule only is taken into account. (If much adverse constituents present, S.M.R. rule
applies but not grading – vide 1 above).
In other cases average of the two rules is taken.
Except in the case of A3 soils the computation by the two rules is usually a simple guide as to
presence of adverse constituents. If grading rule exceeds (S.M.R. rule minus 2 in.) the adverse
constituents may be neglected and the mean of the two rules taken. If grading rule is less than
(S.M.R. rule minus 4 in) they are present in quantity and grading rule is discarded.
Table B .2: Normal traffic loading

U 0.13 U S 0.22 S W 26-0.195 W W 26-0.195W
11 1.43 1 0.22 85 9.42 109 4.74
12 1.56 2 0.44 86 9.23 110 4.55
13 1.69 3 0.66 87 9.04 111 4.36
14 1.82 4 0.88 88 8.84 112 4.16
15 1.95 5 1.10 89 8.64 113 3.96
16 2.08 6 1.32 80 8.45 114 3.77
17 2.21 7 1.54 91 8.26 115 3.58
18 2.34 8 1.76 92 8.06 116 3.38
19 2.47 9 1.98 93 7.86 117 3.18
20 2.60 10 2.20 94 7.67 118 2.99
21 2.73 11 2.42 95 7.48 119 2.80
22 2.86 12 2.64 96 7.28 120 2.60
23 2.99 13 2.86 97 7.08 121 2.40
24 3.12 14 3.08 98 6.89 122 2.21
25 3.25 15 3.30 99 6.70 123 2.02
26 3.38 16 3.52 100 6.50 124 1.82
27 3.51 17 3.74 101 6.30 125 1.62
28 3.64 18 3.96 102 6.11 126 1.43
29 3.77 19 4.18 103 5.92 127 1.24
30 3.90 20 4.40 104 5.72 128 1.04
31 4.03 21 4.62 105 5.52 129 0.84
32 4.16 22 4.84 106 5.33 130 0.65
33 4.29 23 5.06 107 5.14 131 0.46
34 4.42 24 5.28 108 4.94 132 0.26
In intermediate cases the test results should be examined in detail to decide the point (if uncertain
there is little error in taking 1 in. less than the S.M.R. rule).
In A3 soils there is a transition zone where application of S.M.R. and grading rules is uncertain, but
this is a rare case in practice and thicknesses are not unduly large. A safe method is to take the
higher of the two rules in this doubtful zone.
7
Passing 200 less than 10% of pass 7 or less than 15% of pass 36.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 69 —
(d) Effective Cover

The effective cover is the sum for all overlying courses counted as follows:
Macadam, stone, sandstone Actual thickness
Gravel-sand clay, sand-clay Actual thickness
Bituminous courses
Dense and solid Twice actual thickness
Semi-dense grading One and one-half times actual thickness
Very open grading Actual thickness
Surface treatment only Neglect
Soil subbases, etc.
A1, A2, A3 (1942 PRA) Actual thickness
Other groups Two-thirds actual thickness
For unsurfaced pavements the same thickness is required on sandy non-plastic soils as for
bituminous pavements. On plastic and highly organic soils the thickness may be reduced by one-
third if unsurfaced.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 70 —
APPENDIX C THE ORIGINS OF DESIGN DEFLECTION

CURVES –EXCERPT FROM JAMESON
(1996)
The following is an excerpt from Origins of the Austroads Design Procedures for Granular
Pavements (Jameson 1996). The Figure and Table numbers have been changed to reflect that
the excerpt is Appendix C of this report.
C.1 Design Deflections

C.1.1 Origins of Austroads Design Deflections
The Austroads (1992) overlay design procedures include a design deflection curve (Curve 1,
Fig. 10 – shown here as Figure C 1) for use in controlling ‘the rate of permanent deformation in the
pavement and subgrade and may be used for all pavements regardless of surfacing types’.
Contrary to the mechanistic approach to overlay design (Austroads 1992), Curve 1 applies to all
pavement types; different curves are not provided for varying subgrade strengths or pavement
thicknesses. Consequently, it was of interest to trace the origins of the Austroads design deflection
criterion.
1.6
1.4
1.2
Design Curve 1
Surface 1.0
Deflection
(mm)
0.8
0.6
Curve 2
0.4
0.2
0
105 2 4 6 8 106 2 4 6 8 107 2 4 6 8 108
Design Traffic (ESAs)
Figure C 1: Austroads design deflection criteria (Fig. 10.3 of Austroads 1992)
Austroads Curve 1 is the same as NAASRA (1979) Curve 1 (Fig. 11 – shown here as Figure C 2),
except that the NAASRA8 Curve 1 is only applicable to pavements with unbound bases with thin
asphalt surfacings. The other principal difference is that the Austroads Curve 1 is applicable to
traffic loadings up 108 ESAs, whereas the upper limit of NAASRA Curve 1 is 3 x 107 ESAs.
8
Incorrectly stated as ‘Austroads’ in Jameson (1996).
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 71 —
Note that in adopting the NAASRA Curve 1 for all pavement types, it seems that the NAASRA
Working Group revising the 1979 NAASRA Guide reasoned that NAASRA Curves 2, 3 and 4 were
provided to control fatigue of asphalt and cemented materials. Consequently, the Group adopted
NAASRA Curve 1 to control rutting for all pavement types. NAASRA Curve 4 was retained to
inhibit cracking in cemented bases and a new curvature function was adopted to control asphalt
fatigue.
Figure C 2: NAASRA (1979) design deflection criteria
According to Black (1977) the 1979 NAASRA design deflection curves:

…were adopted from the information available and appropriate to Australian
conditions. In particular Curve B (Curve 2) was derived from the deflection levels
adopted by the 40th NAASRA (1969) for unbound base to be surfaced with
bituminous concrete, and Curves A, C and D (Curves 1, 3 and 4) were derived
from experience in CRB VIC and DMR NSW.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 72 —
The basis of the 1979 NAASRA Curve 1 seems to be the design deflections agreed at the 40th
meeting of NAASRA in 1969. These design deflections are given in Table C 1 and Figure C 1 and
Figure C 3. Note that the 1969 NAASRA design deflections assumed that pavements have
sprayed seal surfaces for traffic up to 450 commercial vehicles per day and asphalt surfaces for
higher traffic volumes.
The minutes of the 40th NAASRA meeting give some background to the origin of the 1969
NAASRA design deflections:
The values for tolerable deflections of pavement are based on:
(a) Consideration of recommended values of tolerable deflections for economic
performance of pavements reported from extensive deflection surveys in
Europe and Northern America.
(b) Limited surveys conducted by ARRB in Victoria and Tasmania correlated
with later performance.
(c) Experience of State Road Authorities with deflection surveys.
Table C 1: Early design deflections for granular pavements with a sprayed seal surfacing
Design traffic Design traffic 1965 Scala 1969 1969 CRB 1975 CRB 1979 NAASRA
two-way one-way allowable NAASRA Ddesign design design
end-of-life ESAs/20 years deflection design deflection deflection deflection
CV/day (mm) deflection (mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm)
0-50 8 x 104 1.78 1.78 1.80
50-150 3 x 105 1.40 1.40 1.27 1.30 1.36
150-450 1 x 106 1.02 1.02 1.14 1.10 1.14
450-1500 3 x 106 0.76 0.76* 1.02 1.00 0.98
1500-4500 1 x 107 0.64* 0.89 0.90 0.88
>4500 3 x 107 0.51* 0.76 0.80 0.83
Design deflections for asphalt-surfaced pavements.
2
Design deflection (mm)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
1E4 1E5 1E6 1E7 1E8
Design Traffic (ESAs)
NAASRA 1979 CRB 1975 NAASRA 1969
Figure C 3: Comparison of design deflections
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 73 —
The design deflections adopted for the sprayed seal pavements appear to be largely based on
research conducted by Scala (1965). As discussed below, Scala conducted field measurements of
200 Victorian pavements with sprayed seal surfaces. Using the high deflection data (> 0.8 mm),
and taking account of the findings of the AASHO Road Test, Scala proposed allowable deflections
which were identical to those later adopted by NAASRA in 1969 (see Table C.1) for traffic loadings
up to 1 x 106 ESAs. These are the highest expected deflections over all subgrade CBRs and
granular thicknesses, as discussed in Section C.2.
The origins of the 1969 NAASRA design deflections for higher traffic loadings (asphalt surfaced
pavements) are less clear. The design deflection for 3 x 106 ESAs is the same as that
recommended by Scala (1965). It is noted that all three design deflections are similar to the
Californian design deflection for a granular pavement with a 50 mm thick asphalt surfacing (Zube
and Forsyth 1966). These Californian design deflections were based on the performance of
heavily-trafficked (about 107 ESAs) roads extrapolated to other loadings using the slope of a
laboratory asphalt fatigue line. It seems, then, that these Californian design deflections were
related to asphalt fatigue rather than to rutting.
In 1969 the CRB adopted separate design deflections for sprayed seal surfaced and asphalt
surfaced pavements (Currie 1969). The sprayed seal surfaced values for traffic loadings
exceeding 106 ESAs seem to have been estimated by adding 0.25 mm (0.01 inch) to the 1969
NAASRA asphalt surfaced values. This adjustment factor was considered to be somewhat
conservative based on CRB experience but in line with specifications used in the United States
(Currie 1969). For traffic loadings of 106 ESAs and less, the CRB (1969) design deflections were
slightly less than the NAASRA (1979) values.
In 1975, the CRB issued Technical Bulletin 29 Pavement Deflection Testing Using the Benkelman
Beam. As seen in Table C1, these design deflections for sprayed seal surfaced pavements were
similar to the CRB values outlined in Currie (1969) except for some rounding off in the metrication
process.
In summary, for traffic loading below about 106 ESAs the current Austroads design deflections
appear to have been derived from research conducted by Scala taking account of the findings of
the AASHO Road Test. Above 106 ESAs, the design deflections may have been based on the
Californian design deflections for 50 mm thick asphalt pavements adjusted to estimated equivalent
sprayed seal values.
C.1.2 Design Deflection Dependence on Granular Thickness and Subgrade CBR

As already mentioned, the Austroads design deflection curve is applicable to all pavements
irrespective of granular thickness or subgrade CBR. The concept of a single design deflection
curve for all pavements is at variance with the mechanistic approach to overlay design (Austroads
1994). Research conducted by Scala, on which the Austroads design deflections are in part
based, is discussed below in relation to this issue. In addition, the relevant findings of TRRL
research are reviewed.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 74 —
Scala’s findings
In the early 1960s, Scala derived a method of new pavement design based on deflections to
complement the CBR approach to pavement design. As it is impossible to measure deflections on
a proposed pavement, Scala’s deflection method involved comparing the predicted deflection for
the proposed pavement with the design deflection. Based on field measurements of about 200
Victorian pavements with sprayed seal surfaces, Scala (1965) developed relationships to predict
Benkelman Beam deflections from subgrade strength (CBR) and granular thickness. Scala
determined two such relationships:
the line of best fit
the line estimating the maximum expected deflections for any combination of granular
thickness and subgrade CBR.
As stated by Scala:
The line of best fit will give a relation to be expected for the average structural
condition of the pavement material and subgrade. If the pavement materials are
not compacted as well as the average condition in Victoria, which is thought to be
higher than normal, then the actual deflections will be higher than expected from
the (line of best fit) prediction. Further, the CBR of a subgrade is a very variable
quantity. In this investigation, the variation is both longitudinally and vertically (with
depth). Neglecting any longitudinal variation the choice of the correct CBR rating
for a subgrade which varies with depth is difficult; this variation must be reflected in
total deflection....
To allow for these conditions, or to cover any risk of failure it is probably preferable
to fit the envelope or the line giving the maximum expected deflection for any
combination of CBR and granular thickness.
Mean deflection relationship

The following line of best fit was obtained by Scala using multiple regression analysis on all the
data:
log(d) = –(0.88+0.0165t) – 0.5 log(CBR) A1
Where
d = Benkelman Beam maximum deflection (inches)
t = thickness of granular material (inches)
CBR = subgrade CBR.
This relationship, which is plotted in metric units in Figure C. 1, gives the expected or mean
deflection for a given granular thickness and subgrade CBR.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 75 —
1.8
Mean Deflection (mm)

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Subgrade CBR (%)
200 mm 300 mm 400 mm 500 mm
Figure C. 1: Measured dependence of mean Benkelman Beam deflection on subgrade CBR for various granular
thicknesses (Scala 1965)
‘High’ deflection relationship

As stated above, Scala also developed a relationship to predict the maximum expected deflection
for any combinations of subgrade CBR and granular thickness. Pavements with low deflections
(< 0.8 mm) were excluded from this analysis. This resulted in less than half the original 200
pavements available for analysis. In order to increase the sample size use was made of the
results from an additional 60 sites from another investigation in which residential streets were
tested. The following equation was obtained from regression analysis of the combined data set:
log(d) = – 0.34(1+0.1t) – 0.7 log(CBR) A2
Where
d = Benkelman Beam maximum deflection (inches)
t = thickness of granular material (inches)
CBR = subgrade CBR.
This relationship, which is plotted in metric units in Fig. C.5, enabled the designer of a new
pavement to determine the granular thickness required in order that, when the pavement was
constructed:
…the structure is 95% certain, after testing by the normal beam procedure, to have
a deflection less than the specified standard of deflection. (Scala 1965)
Note that for a given design deflection and subgrade CBR, higher thicknesses of granular materials
were required by the ‘high’ deflection relationship than by the mean deflection relationship. As
such the use of the ‘high’ deflection relationship was considered to be a conservative approach to
the design of new pavements.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 76 —
"High" Deflection (mm)

2.6
2.2
1.8
1.4
1
0.6
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Subgrade CBR (%)
200 mm 300 mm 400 mm 500 mm
Figure C. 2: Measured dependence of high Benkelman Beam deflection on subgrade CBR for
various granular thicknesses (Scala 1965)
Design deflection
Scala proposed deflection criterion using:
the ‘high’ Benkelman Beam deflection dependence on granular thickness and subgrade CBR
(eqn (8))
the relationship between design traffic loading for a given subgrade CBR and granular
thickness, obtained from the 1959 RRL granular thickness (Appendix A, Table A.5) and a
conversion between traffic category and design ESAs (see Appendix A, Table A.1).
The resulting relationships between ‘high’ deflection and design traffic loading are given in
Figure C. 3 for various thicknesses of granular material and Figure C. 4 for various subgrade
CBRs. Using this data and in view of the AASHO road test findings, Scala proposed the design
deflections given in Table C 1. As mentioned above, for traffic loading less than 106 ESAs Scala’s
design deflections formed the basis of the 1992 Austroads design deflections. These Austroads
(1992) design deflections are also shown in Figure C. 3 and Figure C. 4. It is apparent that the
Austroads design deflections are the maximum expected deflections for a given design traffic over
all subgrade CBRs and granular thicknesses.
It should be noted that Scala used the ‘high’ deflection relationship rather than the mean deflection
relationship. When the mean deflection relationship (Equation A 1) is used to derive design
deflection curves, the relationship between deflection and design traffic loading is very different, as
illustrated in Figure C. 5. In this case, there is a much stronger dependence of design deflection
on granular thickness and the design deflections are substantially lower than those adopted by
Austroads for all granular thicknesses. This suggests that the Austroads (1992) design deflection
curve overestimates the average allowable design traffic loadings. However, it should be noted
that these overestimates of average loading in part offset the conservatism of the relationship
between deflection and allowable loadings resulting from the use of the conservative granular
thickness chart (Fig. 8.4, Austroads Guide (1992) in their deviation.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 77 —

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
1E4 1E5 1E6 1E7
Design Traffic Loading (ESAs)
200 mm 300 mm 400 mm

500 mm AUSTROADS
Figure C. 3: Relationship between ‘high’ Benkelman Beam deflection and

design traffic loading for various granular thicknesses
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
1E4 1E5 1E6 1E7
Design Traffic Loading (ESAs)
CBR=2 CBR=3 CBR=5

CBR=10 CBR=15 AUSTROADS
Figure C. 4: Relationship between ‘high’ Benkelman Beam deflection and

design traffic loading for various subgrade CBRs
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 78 —
The above discussion suggests that Scala’s data, on which the Austroads design deflection
criterion is based, does not support the use of a single design deflection curve for all granular
thicknesses and subgrade CBRs. The Austroads design deflections are the maximum expected
deflections over all granular thicknesses and subgrade CBRs.
Mean Deflection (mm) 1.8

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
1E4 1E5 1E6 1E7
Design Traffic Loading (ESA)
200 mm 300 mm 400 mm

500 mm AUSTROADS
Figure C. 5: Relationship between mean Benkelman Beam deflection

and mean design traffic loading for various granular thicknesses
TRRL research findings

The NAASRA design deflection criterion (Curve 1 NAASRA 1979) was also re-examined by the
NAASRA Working Group Revising the NAASRA Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design.
Using the mechanistic design procedures, Youdale (1984) derived a similar dependence on design
deflection on granular thickness to that observed in the derivation of ASMOL, the interim Austroads
Simplified Method of Overlay design. As there was no dependence on granular thickness in
NAASRA Curve 1 design deflection criterion used at that time (the same as Austroads Curve 1),
the Working Group (Anderson 1984) reviewed some of the work of Lister (1972) of TRRL to assess
whether the thickness dependence was supported by British performance data.
Lister used data obtained in the Alconbury Hill experiment to investigate the relationship between
deflection, structural pavement parameters and performance. Test sections with rolled asphalt
bases, granular subbases and relatively uniform subgrades provided data which enabled the
influence of asphalt base and sand subbase on deflection to be estimated. Figure C. 6 was
derived by Lister after correcting the deflections at individual points to take account of differences
in subgrade CBR from the mean value of 4.5%.
The results indicate that the same design deflection curve can be applied to a range of sand
subbase thicknesses (125-500 mm). However, this is not necessarily in disagreement with either
the observed thickness dependence in mechanistically-based overlay design procedures or the
above analysis of Scala’s data. Lister’s results only apply to one subgrade strength (CBR = 4.5).
As seen from Figure C. 4, Scala’s data indicates a single design curve can be used for a single
subgrade strength. Consequently, contrary to the conclusions of the NAASRA Working Group,
Lister’s data does not support the use of a single design deflection curve for all granular
thicknesses and subgrade CBRs.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 79 —
Figure C. 6: Relationship between deflection, critical life and thickness for pavements
with rolled asphalt bases at Alconbury Hill (Fig. 31 of Lister 1972)
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 80 —
REFERENCES
Anderson, D 1984, ‘Notes on the effect of pavement thickness on tolerable deflection: submission to
NAASRA working group on the revision of NAASRA Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design’,
IGTPTD.
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads Pavement Research Group 1994, ‘Austroads Pavement Design Guide: interim version of revised
overlay design procedures’, APRG 94/10 DA, August.
Country Roads Board, Victoria 1975, Deflection testing using the Benkelman beam, Technical Bulletin No
29, Country Roads Board, Melbourne, Vic.
Country Roads Board, Victoria 1969. The Design of Flexible Pavements. Technical Bulletin 26.
Currie, D 1969, ‘Use of Benkelman Beam in pavement evaluation’, paper presented to the Highways and
Traffic Branch of the Victorian Division of Institute of Engineers Australia, September.
Lister, NW 1972, Deflection criterion for flexible pavements, laboratory report LR 375, Transport and Road
Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, United Kingdom.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA 1969, ‘Notes of 40th meeting of
NAASRA’, NAASRA, Sydney.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA 1979, Interim guide to pavement
thickness design, NAASRA, Sydney.
Scala, AJ 1965, ‘CBR design method deflection dependency’, internal report AIR 010-2, Australian Road
Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Zube, E & Forsyth, R 1966, ‘Flexible pavement maintenance requirements as determined by deflection
measurement’, Highway Research Record, no 129, pp. 60-75.
Austroads 2008
— 1 . 81 —

Chapter 2: 1992 Guide Procedures for Design of Rigid Pavements
George Vorobieff and John Hodgkinson

June 2001
SUMMARY
This report records the work undertaken in the development of Chapter 9 – Design of New Rigid
Pavements – of the 1992 edition of Pavement Design – A Guide to the Structural Design of Road
Pavements, published by Austroads in 1992.
The material presented in this Chapter of the Guide represented over 30 years of development in
Australia and overseas in design procedures for determining the thickness of concrete pavements
for highway truck traffic. The content of the Chapter was drawn from design procedures and
performance of pavements in service in the USA and France as well as aspects of Australian
experience.
Austroads 2008
— 2.i —
CONTENTS
1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................ 1
2 PAVEMENT TYPES ....................................................................................................... 2
3 DESIGN INPUT FACTORS............................................................................................ 3
3.1 General ............................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Concrete Flexural Strength............................................................................................. 3
3.3 Traffic Loading ............................................................................................................ 5
3.4 Foundation Support ........................................................................................................ 8
3.5 Base and Subbase Debonding ..................................................................................... 10
3.6 Concrete Shoulders ...................................................................................................... 10
3.7 Load Transfer at Joints ................................................................................................. 11
4 DESIGN PROCEDURE METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 13
4.1 General .......................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Flexural Fatigue Analysis.............................................................................................. 13
4.3 Erosion Analysis .......................................................................................................... 14
5 REINFORCEMENT FOR CRCP................................................................................... 17
6 OVERVIEW OF DESIGN RESULTS............................................................................ 18
6.1 General .......................................................................................................... 18
6.2 Minimum Thickness Limit ............................................................................................. 18
6.3 Maximum Wheel Load .................................................................................................. 18
6.4 Influence of Concrete Shoulders .................................................................................. 19
6.5 Relative Influence of Traffic Volumes and Axle Loads ................................................. 19
6.6 Influence of Pavement Type ......................................................................................... 20
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 21
Austroads 2008
— 2.ii —
TABLES
Table 3.1: Legal axle loads and extent of overloads for the typical rural and urban
road axle group distributions in Appendix I of the 1992 Guide ......................... 8
Table 4.1: Faulting criteria for major roads (Packard 1977) ............................................ 16
Table 6.1: Static load equivalence for various commercial vehicle axle groups with
a maximum wheel load of 65 kN and a LSF of 1.2........................................... 19
FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Typical longitudinal section of plain concrete pavement (PCP). ....................... 2
Figure 2.2: Typical longitudinal section of jointed reinforced concrete pavement
(JRCP) .............................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2.3: Typical longitudinal section of continuously reinforced concrete
pavement (CRCP) ............................................................................................ 2
Figure 2.4: Typical cross-section of dowelled plain concrete pavement (PCP-D) .............. 2
Figure 3.1: Design model assumption of concrete strength gain with age.......................... 4
Figure 3.2: Fatigue relationship adopted in design model .................................................. 4
Figure 3.3: Plan of the four most common commercial vehicle axle groups in
Australia............................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3.4: Axle group load distributions for a typical urban site from Appendix I of
the Guide .......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3.5: Axle group load distributions for a typical rural site from Appendix I of the
Guide ................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 3.6: The base will curl on a daily cycle provided the base and subbase are
debonded........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 3.7: Equivalent edge stress factor depends on percentage of trucks at
pavement edge ............................................................................................... 11
Figure 3.8: The void under the slab allows water to push the fines from the
subbase/subgrade material, and in some cases water has been seen to
spray out of transverse joints.......................................................................... 11
Figure 3.9: A joint with 100% joint effectiveness will deflect equally across the joint........ 12
Figure 3.10: A joint with 0% joint effectiveness will have zero deflection across the
joint ................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 4.1: Position of axle load group for the critical base flexural stress ....................... 14
Figure 4.2: Position of axle load group for the critical base deflections ............................ 15
Figure 6.1: Base thickness for varying CVAGs for plain concrete pavement with and
without dowels. ............................................................................................... 19
Figure 6.2: Typical rigid pavement thickness design curve for a specific effective
CBR and concrete flexural strength demonstrating that erosion of the
transverse joints is generally the dominant distress mechanism for high-
volume vehicle traffic ...................................................................................... 20
Austroads 2008
— 2.iii —
1 GENERAL
The 1992 Edition of Chapter 9 Design of New Rigid Pavements represents over 30 years of
development in Australia and overseas in design procedures for determining the thickness of
concrete pavements for highway truck traffic. The current guide is drawn principally from design
procedures and performance of pavements in service in the USA (PCA 1984) and France, and
aspects of Australian experience.
The basis for the Austroads procedure is analytical rather than empirical. It is mechanistic and has
been so over its 30-year development period. The mechanistic approach is based on selecting a
trial pavement thickness with the thickness being tested against boundary conditions which places
limits on the damage caused to the pavement under traffic loading.
The procedure analyses the two most probable causes of pavement distress which may occur in a
ground-supported pavement under long term heavy repeated traffic loads. These are as follows:
flexural fatigue from repeated flexural tensile stresses at the bottom of the slab. Built into this
analysis is consideration of the locations of wheel paths relative to the outside longitudinal
edge of the pavement base where critical stresses occur.
erosion in the pavement foundation in the areas under joints or cracks caused by the
accumulated effects of deflections from repeated traffic loads as they cross them.
It is important to those who may use the Austroads Chapter 9 to understand that the procedure
uses criteria applicable to large volumes of heavy commercial road vehicles moving in one
direction, with wheel paths within a reasonably defined zone in a defined traffic lane and at speeds
above 60 km/h. This is why in the opening paragraph to Chapter 9 it is pointed out that Chapter 9
may not be applicable to residential streets or many industrial and airfield pavements where the
design conditions are not similar.
The Austroads Guide does not include design procedures for slab anchors, joint detailing and
layouts. Other documents, such as the RTA, NSW Concrete Pavement Manual (RTA, NSW 1996)
or the Australian Road Concrete Training Manual (Vorobieff 1998)), should be used to finalise the
design of rigid pavements.
Austroads 2008
— 2.1 —
2 PAVEMENT TYPES
The thickness design procedure in the Guide allows for:
jointed plain (unreinforced) concrete pavements (PCP) – refer to Figure 2.1
jointed reinforced concrete pavements (JRCP) – refer to Figure 2.2
continuously reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP) – refer to Figure 2.3
Whilst it is noted in the Guide that the spacing of transverse joints in PCP are in the range of 4 to
5 m, recent experience indicates that 3.5 to 4.5 m is more suitable for PCP.
The Guide is also applicable to dowelled jointed plain (unreinforced) concrete pavements (PCP-D)
as shown in Figure 2.4 and steel-fibre reinforced concrete pavement types. In both the jointed
reinforced and continuously reinforced pavements the purpose of the steel reinforcement is to
manage crack widths between planned joints to allow load transfer by aggregate interlock. The
Guide could not be used for doubly reinforced concrete pavements whereby the bottom layer
reinforcement is subject to bending stresses.
Induced &
3.5 to 4.5m
sealed joints
Figure 2.1: Typical longitudinal section of plain concrete pavement (PCP).
Steel mesh Dowels Sawn &

8 to 15 m sealed
joints
Figure 2.2: Typical longitudinal section of jointed reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP)
0.5 to 1.5m
Steel bars
Figure 2.3: Typical longitudinal section of continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP)
Dowels Induced &

up to 5 m
sealed joints
Figure 2.4: Typical cross-section of dowelled plain concrete pavement (PCP-D)
Austroads 2008
— 2.2 —
3 DESIGN INPUT FACTORS

3.1 General
There are five design input factors to the design procedure:
concrete flexural strength
assignment of traffic loads
foundation support and subbase design leading to an ‘effective’ design California Bearing
Ratio (CBR)
load transfer mechanism at joints or cracks, i.e. dowelled joints
the inclusion or omission of concrete shoulders
Each of these factors are covered in detail in the following sections.
3.2 Concrete Flexural Strength

When a concrete slab is loaded to the point of rupture, the rupture occurs in flexure rather than
compression. The key stresses are flexural tensile stresses at the bottom of the slab and for this
reason the design input factor is concrete flexural strength. For reasons of convenience, cost,
reliability, experience and available laboratory resources, compressive strength is commonly used
to monitor flexural strength for construction purposes.
Guidance on the correlation between flexural and compressive strength is given in Chapter 6 of the
Guide – Pavement Materials .
As an element of conservatism, the design procedure (PCA 1984) applies a reduction of one
statistical coefficient of variation to the design concrete strength in the various Tables and
nomographs. That is, the full design strength is not utilised in the design procedure.
The base concrete must meet two criteria;

provide sufficient strength to produce an economical base thickness
have good durability in terms of surface wear and permeability where reinforcement is
included.
To satisfy both criteria, AS 3600 Concrete Structures indicates a minimum 28-day characteristic
compressive strength of 32 MPa. This typically corresponds to a 28-day flexural strength of about
4.25 MPa but the designer should verify the flexural strength properties from local data using
similar aggregates and cementitious materials.
The design model has been based on the average concrete strength at 28 days age and the Guide
adopted the characteristic strength, that is, the 95% percentile. The difference between the
characteristic and average strength is about 15%.
It must be understood by designers that the design value is just a number. It is the role of
construction specifications to determine how the concrete is to be produced and placed to achieve
the design requirement. These considerations are outside the scope of the Austroads Guide.
Austroads 2008
— 2.3 —
In the design model it has been assumed that the concrete strength increases with age from 28 to
90 days at about 10% (Figure 3.1). Most concrete mixes for road construction appear to not
achieve this growth without the use of supplementary cementitious materials, such as fly ash.
Typically, specifiers make an adjustment for low strength gain after 28 days by specifying a 10%
higher flexural strength than the design calculations.
The lean-mix concrete subbase requirement is to produce a concrete that has a characteristic
concrete compressive strength of 5 to 7 MPa at 28 days. The purpose of the low strength is for the
pavement to not gain high strength in order for the subbase to produce uniform cracks to provide
uniform load transfer across both transverse and longitudinal joints in the base concrete. Also, a
minimum strength is required to ensure low-erodability requirements. No structural gain is
provided except by the increase in subgrade stiffness.
Flexural strength % of 28-day)
130%
120%
90-day design
110%
28-day design
100%
90% 10 100 1000 10000
28 days 90 1 yr 3 5
Age of Concrete
Source: PCA (1984)
Figure 3.1: Design model assumption of concrete strength gain with age
One important element in the design model is the fatigue relationship adopted for concrete such
that the various axle loads and axle groups that produce flexural stress in the base can be
accommodated to establish the minimum base thickness and concrete strength. Figure 3.2 shows
the relationship between concrete flexural stress ratio and number of repetitions.
Flexural strength % of 28-day)
130%
120%
90-day design
110%
28-day design
100%
90% 10 100 1000 10000
28 days 90 1 yr 3 5
Age of Concrete
Figure 3.2: Fatigue relationship adopted in design model
Austroads 2008
— 2.4 —
Thermal, elastic and shrinkage properties are not required in the thickness design procedure but
are used in the determination of the amount of longitudinal reinforcement in continuously reinforced
concrete pavements.
3.3 Traffic Loading

The response of a concrete pavement to repeated loading is that rupture will be caused by the
heavier wheel/axle loads in a particular traffic stream. For this reason the use of generalised load
equivalencies is inappropriate and such load equivalencies can lead to a structurally insufficient
pavement. The preferred design input is a matrix of numbers and loads for different axle types as
discussed in Chapter 7 – Design Traffic.
Cars and light vehicles are not included in the thickness analysis as the stress ratio they produce is
low enough to not affect the summation of damage due to fatigue.
The thickness design procedure allows the direct input of measured load distributions, such as
those from weigh-in-motion data, and these traffic load distributions are based on four commercial
axle groups (Figure 3.3), namely:
single axle with single wheels (SS)
single axle with dual wheels (SD)
tandem axle with dual wheels (TAD)
triaxle with dual wheels (TRD).
To illustrate the use of axle load distributions in the design procedure, two load distributions
labelled ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ (Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5) are given in Appendix I to the 1992 Guide.
The key to these distributions is the dramatic effect on the number of repetitions to pavement
failure from the number of the heavy axle group loads in each axle type at the ‘high load end’ of the
load spectrum. The heavy loads produce substantial flexural stresses in the slab leading to low
allowable axle repetitions to failure (refer to stress ratio diagram in Figure 3.2). Conversely, cars
and light vehicles with axle loads less than 1.5 t produce a low stress ratio and subsequently are
not used in the thickness design procedure.
Single axle Single axle Dual axles Three axles

Single wheels Dual wheels Dual wheels Dual wheels
(SS) (SD) Tandem Triaxle
(TAD) (TRD)
Figure 3.3: Plan of the four most common commercial vehicle axle groups in Australia
Austroads 2008
— 2.5 —
It should be noted that these load distributions have no exclusive connection to concrete
pavements and could be used in the design of any pavement type. The distributions in the
Appendix were compiled by the design Working Group as being representative of weigh-in-motion
(CULWAY) data from a number of sites in urban and rural locations in NSW and Victoria. ARRB
Transport Research notes that this data is the axle loads with less than a 5% dynamic component.
The designer should always strive to derive the load distribution for the site based on historical
data.
Using the representative load distributions in Appendix I, example design charts were produced as
shown in Figures 9.7 to 9.10. Cautionary notes on any wider application of the axle distributions
and example design charts are given in Chapter 9.
Load safety factors (LSF ) have been used in concrete pavement design in Australia since the
interim NAASRA Guide (NAASRA 1979). The basic design axle loads are multiplied by a factor
generally in the range 1.0 to 1.2 before inputting into the design procedure. It can be
demonstrated that the magnitude of axle loads rather than numbers of overall traffic has a major
influence on the determination of the concrete pavement thickness, and it becomes clear by
inspection from the Example design charts in Chapter 9.
45
40
35
30
25 SS (%) SD (%) TAD (%) TRD (%)

Distribution (%)
20
15
10
0
10 60 110 160 210 260 310
Axle Group Load (kN)
Figure 3.4: Axle group load distributions for a typical urban site from Appendix I of the Guide
Austroads 2008
— 2.6 —
45
40
35
30
25 SS (%) SD (%) TAD (%) TRD (%)

Distribution (%)
20
15
10
0
10 60 110 160 210 260 310
Axle Group Load (kN)
Figure 3.5: Axle group load distributions for a typical rural site from Appendix I of the Guide
For this reason the LSF is applied to axle load tonnage rather than traffic volume repetitions as in
flexible pavement design.
LSF is a design input safety factor against possible changes in traffic patterns for a particular road
during the period for which traffic is estimated, or occasional unpredictable heavy loads whether
legal or not. Table 3.1 shows the legal axle limits, the ratio of the maximum axle load within each
group to the legal limit and the percentage of vehicles over the legal limit. This data indicates that
CULWAY and WIM static axle load data with load safety factors is a conservative approach to the
design model.
In the use of traffic data the designer should take into consideration the possible development of a
new secondary industry complex adjacent to a road being designed and thereby generating an
increase in the assumed load distribution, say 10 to 15 years into the traffic analysis period. Also,
the designer should ensure that traffic growth of commercial vehicles rather than AADT is
considered in the analysis.
Guidance on the distribution of traffic within lanes is not contained in the Guide and the designer
should seek input from the road authority. Typically the lane use factor for commercial vehicles in
the left lane or heavy truck lane will be in the range 85-95%. It is possible to complete designs
giving two thicknesses such that a thicker base is constructed in the left lane and a thinner base in
the other lanes. As noted in this commentary, concrete base thickness design is more sensitive to
the magnitude of axle loads than it is to traffic volumes and accordingly such a two-tiered thickness
design will produce differences in thickness of probably only 20 to 30 mm. When considered in the
context of an overall 10 m carriageway (two lanes and a concrete shoulder), a ‘tapered’ pavement
cross-section has a lower base transverse gradient of about 0.2%. This is generally considered
impracticable for underlying subgrade/subbase layer level tolerance control and therefore, the
typical approach is to design for the heavy truck lane and carry the thickness across the whole
carriageway.
Austroads 2008
— 2.7 —
3.4 Foundation Support

The principal contribution of the subbase to base thickness design is to increase the foundation
CBR. It also has other non-thickness roles including providing an erosion resistant construction
working platform under the base. The thickness design of a concrete road pavement is not
particularly sensitive to modest variations in CBR values.
Table 3.1: Legal axle loads and extent of overloads for the typical rural and urban road axle group distributions in
Appendix I of the 1992 Guide
Road Type Axle group
SS SD TAD TRD
6.0 t 9.0 t 16.5 t 20 t
Ratio of maximum axle load group to legal limit
Rural road 1.87 1.59 1.61 1.68
Urban road 1.70 1.47 1.55 1.68
Percentage of axle loads within groups above the
‘static’ axle legal limit
Rural road 20% 14% 15% 22%
Urban road 9% 3% 5% 11%
The correlation of elastic modulus to CBR as discussed in Chapter 5 Subgrade Evaluation can be
reasonably applied to concrete pavement design.
Almost all international road engineering agencies now include bound subbases in varying forms in
concrete pavement design guides and catalogues relevant to highway and similar road
classifications.
Figure 9.1 provides guidance on the minimum subbase requirements and only bound or lean-mix
concrete subbases are noted.
The genesis of current subbase design information in Chapter 9 can be attributed to work by
leading international engineers Michel Ray from SETRA in France (Ray 1981) and the late Prof.
Eldon Yoder of Purdue University in the USA (Yoder 1978). Until the work of Ray on subbases in
the late 1970s and early 1980s, concrete slab thickness design had a simplistic approach. The
solution was simply to make the slab thicker using a relatively thin unbound subbase. One of the
forms of distress which was not being analysed was erosion occurring under joints as the result of
plastic foundation soils becoming wet and being ejected upwards and out of joints by joint/crack
deflections caused by large numbers of truck loads i.e. ‘pumping’. Experience had shown that
simply making a slab thicker did not always address the issues of drainage and erosion.
Ray (1981) drew the link between load transfer (dowels or not dowels), varying traffic load intensity
and erosion under the slab. This also included discussion on internal pavement drainage and the
selection of subbase materials which would offer resistance to erosion based on the above three
factors. This led to the progressive development of practical design information in Australia now
contained in Figure 9.1 of Chapter 9.
Austroads 2008
— 2.8 —
Yoder presented information in an invited paper to the ARRB Conference in 1978 showing, among
a range of other design issues, the benefit to design, expressed in terms of an increase in design
CBR by placing a subbase of any type. For unbound subbases the benefit was very small. As
concrete thickness design is relatively insensitive to variations in CBR compared with a flexible
pavement it was decided to not assign any increase in CBR for an unbound subbase.9
The increase in the CBR value from the top of the subgrade to that at the top of the subbase is
shown in Figure 9.2 in Chapter 9 and is termed the ‘effective’ CBR. This chart was prepared from
the PCA Manual (PCA 1984) based on the AASHO Road Test research results. It is the value
assigned to the foundation support input factor used in the thickness design procedure. Whilst the
horizontal axis of Figure 9.2 assigns input CBR values ranging from 2 to 35%, the designer needs
to assure that the subgrade CBR is achievable in the field when sections of the pavement are
constructed on fill. It is not prudent to specify a 150 mm layer with a CBR of 35% on a layer
consisting of CBR at 5%. The Guide does not provide suitable guidelines with respect to multi-
layered subgrades and the engineer should seek geotechnical advice.
The subbase thickness and material type are general recommendations which link traffic loads,
susceptibility to erosion (a low CBR subgrade will be more prone to erosion than a high one), and
joint load transfer (dowels or no dowels). A guide such as Austroads cannot attempt to provide
detailed advice on all conditions around Australia and presents the preferred general approach. As
pointed out in Chapter 9 if good local research or experience shows good performance with a less
demanding solution such as good quality unbound materials then the Guide does not restrict local
experience. However, adoption of overseas technology of subbase construction should be
carefully examined as many practices perform well under the appropriate climatic conditions, for
example permeable subbases for frozen subgrades.
The thickness design of the subbase is arbitrary and supported by experience. For highway
construction in the early 1990s the minimum thickness which was believed to be capable of
construction was 100 mm. Many engineers have found that a more appropriate minimum
construction thickness for the subbase is 125 mm.
The design of a concrete pavement base slab is relatively insensitive to modest variations in CBR,
such that an increase in subbase thickness above 150 mm will prove to be uneconomical for a
given design traffic load. For example, an increase in subbase thickness from 150 mm to 200 mm
could be structurally matched by an increase in base thickness of about 5 mm. Therefore, no
recommendations are given for subbase thicknesses greater than 150 mm.
9
Whilst not mentioned in the Guide it is implicit by its exclusion.
Austroads 2008
— 2.9 —
Slab moves up
Tension
Daytime curling of base

Slab moves up at edges
Compression
Night time curling of base

Figure 3.6: The base will curl on a daily cycle provided the base and subbase are debonded
3.5 Base and Subbase Debonding

The thickness design approach in the Guide is based on the assumption that the base and
subbase are two individual layers such that the base slab can ‘freely’ curl according to daily
changes in temperature (Figure 3.6). The Guide cannot be used for conditions where the base is
bonded to the subbase.
3.6 Concrete Shoulders

Critical wheel induced stresses occur at the outside edge of a slab and therefore, positioning of the
commercial vehicles to minimise edge loadings and slab thickness is essential to the design
procedure. A number of field observations in the USA and analytical studies, principally by
Zollinger and Barenberg (1989) in the USA have shown two characteristics which are built into the
procedure, namely:
Field studies (PCA 1984) showed that typical outer wheel paths for trucks are about 600 mm
in from the outside edge of the main heavy truck lane and about 6% of all axles in the outer
wheel path are at the edge or very close to it.
For the stress analysis, fatigue was computed at mm increments inward from the slab edge
for different truck wheel positions. This analysis showed that the equivalent edge-stress
factors, as shown in Figure 3.7, could be generated such that a statistical analysis could
derive a conservative equivalent stress factor to allow for 6% of the truck wheels travelling at
the edge. These edge stress ratios for the assumed truck wander were incorporated in the
design model.
Austroads 2008
— 2.10 —
Ratio to Edge Stress

for Same Fatigue
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Percent Trucks at Edge
Source: PCA (1984)
Figure 3.7: Equivalent edge stress factor depends on percentage of trucks at pavement edge
The concept of using concrete shoulders is to allow the base to be designed for interior loading
and hence a thinner base thickness. Concrete shoulders also assist in the shedding of water away
from the subbase and subgrade in the main carriageway area. Field performance studies in the
USA were carried out using 10 foot wide shoulders and much of the analysis to date has been
based on 10 feet (i.e. ≈3 m) wide tied concrete shoulders. The Guide allows the use of 1.5 m tied
shoulders and to date there has been no research to indicate that this is unsatisfactory.
Although outside the scope of Chapter 9, a common Australian design detail is to widen the
distance between the two longitudinal joints forming the heavy truck lane, without changing an
overall multiple-lane carriageway width and paint an edge line about 500 to 600 mm in from the
outside one of these joints. This is referred to as a ‘widened truck lane’ and is discussed in Ayton
(1993). As trucks will generally respond to linemarking, the outer wheel path is further shifted from
the edge of the truck lane slab and adds further conservatism. This pavement detail is widely used
in Europe, particularly in France.
3.7 Load Transfer at Joints

Many long-term performance problems of concrete pavements in Australia and internationally
causing slab cracking are not always simply due to lack of slab thickness, but are due to voids
under the slab from the erosion of subgrade material. The voids are formed by large joint
deflections and resulting pumping of the underlying material upwards through joints or cracks
Figure 3.8. The slab is no longer in the assumed state of being fully supported.
Approach slab Leave slab
Accumulated fines
Figure 3.8: The void under the slab allows water to push the fines from the subbase/subgrade material, and in some
cases water has been seen to spray out of transverse joints
Austroads 2008
— 2.11 —
Experience over the last 60 years has shown that erosion of the subgrade is principally a heavy
truck-trafficked highway condition and it is not usually found in residential streets (lightly trafficked).
Load transfer is a measure of the vertical shear load transferred across the joint when the load is
positioned adjacent to the joint as shown in Figure 3.9. When there is no load transfer the
differential deflection or faulting across the joint is at maximum (Figure 3.10) and conversely the
differential deflection is zero when there is 100% load transfer across the joint. Faulting across the
joint is sometimes referred to as stepping.
Approach slab Leave slab
Accumulated fines
Figure 3.9: A joint with 100% joint effectiveness will deflect equally across the joint
Wheel
Load
ΔL = d Δu = 0
Figure 3.10: A joint with 0% joint effectiveness will have zero deflection across the joint
Load transfer across transverse and longitudinal joints is typically achieved by aggregate interlock,
corrugated formed side faces, mechanical dowels and shear keys for lightly-trafficked roads. For
CRCP load transfer at transverse cracks is achieved by aggregate interlock and therefore, it is
crucial to have narrow cracks formed in the base. The reinforcement does not provide dowel
action but holds the cracks together from repetitive opening and closing of cracks due to
temperature variations.
The erosion analysis is concerned with the power of deflections at joints and cracks applied to the
foundation. The deflections are influenced both by traffic speed and slab thickness. The analysis
is also influenced by the type of load transfer at a joint i.e. whether it has dowels or no dowels.
The finite analysis leading to the design procedure models assumes that in a dowelled joint the
dowel provides effectively all the load transfer and is modelled as a series of small elastic beams,
one per dowel. An aggregate interlock type joint is modelled as a spring.
In general terms a thin slab will feel a greater ‘punch’ from a moving load than a thick slab.
Although deflections in a concrete pavement are small, dowelled, joint will deflect relatively less
than an undowelled joint for a particular load. For design purposes and with the amount of
longitudinal reinforcement in CRCP, CRCP thickness design follows the same criteria as for a
dowelled jointed pavement. A concrete shoulder will also reduce joint deflections and will influence
the erosion analysis.
Austroads 2008
— 2.12 —
4 DESIGN PROCEDURE METHODOLOGY

4.1 General
The fatigue life of the slab has been based on the trucks causing fatigue damage The core design
methodology adopted by Austroads is taken from a USA procedure known as the ‘1984 PCA
Method’ (PCA 1984). The Canadian Edition is used for convenience as it is in metric units but in
all other respects is identical to the USA edition. This analytical design procedure to determine
subbase and base thickness for various pavement types is based on the premise that the
pavement will reach some lower level of satisfactory service by either the onset of fatigue cracking
or erosion of the subbase or subgrade at joints or cracks.
Other published highway authority documents, particularly those in the UK and Europe, are
frequently issued in catalogue form and do not present or discuss the design criteria in detail
making it difficult to assess their relevance or compatibility with Australian conditions. They are
often based on statutory axle loads that are much higher than in Australia and include provision for
very harsh winter conditions not usually experienced in Australia.
The AASHTO method developed in the USA was empirically derived from the performance of a
series of test tracks using pavement compositions not used in Australia and under some climatic
conditions not considered relevant to Australia. This procedure was not considered for this reason.
A discussion on selected overseas design guides and comparative thicknesses is discussed in
Hodgkinson (1993).
Much of the Austroads procedure incorporates information derived from finite element analysis
models and software developed in the USA in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Packard and Ray
1986; Packard and Tayabji 1985; Heinrichs et al. 1988). In this regard the 1992 Austroads Guide
marks a departure from the previous Guides based on equations developed by Westergaard for
calculating stresses in slabs for single wheel loads and the Pickett and Ray influence charts which
assess the influence of multiple wheel assemblies at edges or within slabs.
The use of CIRCLY for rigid pavements has not been considered technically relevant as it
assumes infinite layers of homogeneous and isotropic properties around the area of load
application. It cannot take into account discontinuities, such as joints/cracks, or the positioning of
wheel loads near an outside edge or at a joint, both of which have a direct bearing on design of
rigid pavements.
4.2 Flexural Fatigue Analysis

The fatigue analysis has two steps; calculating the equivalent stress at an outside edge caused by
one application of a particular load; determining the fatigue damage caused by the numbers of
loads in the design load distribution. In terms of establishing the equivalent stress the design
model assumes that the critical position of the vehicle axle group is at mid-slab and adjacent to the
edge as shown in Figure 4.1. The equivalent stresses in Tables 9.2 and 9.3 of the Guide have
allowed for the truck wander as indicated in Figure 3.7.
Based on a trial base thickness and effective design CBR an equivalent stress for a pavement with
or without a concrete shoulder is obtained from Table 9.2 in Chapter 9 for each axle type. The
reduction in equivalent stress with increasing foundation support, trial thickness and the inclusion
of a shoulder can be seen by inspection. The equivalent stress is divided by the design concrete
flexural strength to obtain the stress ratio factor for each axle type. The stress ratio factor forms
the basis for the fatigue analysis.
Austroads 2008
— 2.13 —
Wheel
Load
ΔL = d Δu = 0
Figure 4.1: Position of axle load group for the critical base flexural stress
The fatigue analysis aims to keep flexural stresses within safe limits by limiting the fatigue damage
to 100%. This is determined by summing the individual fatigue damage from each axle type/load
in the design load distribution. This is based on the ‘Miner hypothesis’ approach which simply says
that the balance of fatigue damage after considering one load is available for all other loads.
If the stress ratio is kept small and given the general response of a concrete element to loads then
it is highly unlikely that slab rupture will occur for a particular load. This leads to the use of the
term ‘unlimited’ load repetitions. Based on work in the USA dating back to the 1960s and until the
1987 Austroads Guide, the unlimited load classification was applied to a stress ratio less than 0.5.
At a stress ratio of 0.5, the allowable repetitions were 500,000 and this value progressively
declined as the stress ratio increased. During the 1980s it became clear in the USA (PCA 1984)
that with increasing truck traffic, design axle load repetitions were now often approaching and
exceeding one hundred million compared with the 1970s when designs were more often in tens of
millions. However, the same thickness results often emerged because of the 0.5 stress ratio and
this was considered to be ‘unrealistic’. Accordingly, the 1984 PCA Procedure and 1992 Austroads
Guide have extended the unlimited repetition stress ratio down to 0.45 (Figure 3.2). This has led to
more conservative designs at the higher end of design traffic volumes than previously.
For design inputs yielding a thickness of about 150 mm the changed fatigue design from the 1987
Austroads Guide has negligible effect. For a design yielding a thickness of about 230 to 250 mm,
and all other factors remaining constant the base thickness has increased by about 10 mm arising
from the changed stress ratio conditions alone.
Using the load per wheel for a particular axle group and the stress ratio factor for that axle group
the allowable repetitions for different loads are determined from the nomograph in Figure 9.4 of the
1992 Guide. The inclusion or otherwise of a concrete shoulder has already been taken into
account within the equivalent stress.
For each axle load the expected load is divided by the allowable load to calculate the fatigue
damage for that load. The individual fatigue damages are summed to calculate the overall fatigue
damage.
The manual design proforma in Appendix I of the Guide allows this to be tabulated.
4.3 Erosion Analysis

Many repetitions of heavy axle loads at slab corners and edges cause pumping resulting in the
erosion of subgrade, subbase, and shoulder materials leading to voids under and adjacent to the
slab. The voids create faulting of pavement joints and are most notable in pavements with
undowelled transverse joints. Finite element analysis shows that the critical axle group location for
erosion distress is at the edge and adjacent to the joint as shown in Figure 4.2.
Austroads 2008
— 2.14 —
Traffic
Lane
Concrete
Shoulder
Pavement Edge
Figure 4.2: Position of axle load group for the critical base deflections
The PCA Design Guide (PCA 1984) notes that:

Correlations of deflections computed from the finite element analysis with AASHO
Road Test performance data were not completely satisfactory for design purposes.
(The principal mode of failure of concrete pavements at the AASHO Road Test was
pumping or erosion of the granular subbase from under the slabs.) It was found
that to be able to predict the AASHO Road Test performance, different values of
deflection criteria would have to be applied to different slab thicknesses, and to a
small extent, different foundation moduli (k values).
More useful correlation was obtained by multiplying the computed corner deflection
values (w) by computed pressure values (p) at the slab-foundation interface.
Power, or rate of work, with which an axle load deflects the slab is the parameter
used for the erosion criterion - for a unit area, the product of pressure and
deflection divided by a measure of the length of the deflection basin (l-radius of
relative stiffness, in millimeters). The concept is that a thin pavement with its
shorter deflection basin receives a faster load punch than a thicker slab. That is, at
equal pw’s and equal truck speed, the thinner slab is subjected to a faster rate of
work or power (watts). A successful correlation with road test performance was
obtained with this parameter.
The development of the erosion criterion was also generally related to studies on
joint faulting. These studies included pavements in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North
Dakota, Georgia, and California, and included a range of variables not found at the
AASHO Road Test, such as a greater number of trucks, undowelled pavements, a
wide range of years of pavement service, and stabilized subbases.
The erosion analysis follows a similar procedure to that of the fatigue analysis and is based on a
suitable base thickness which will keep joint/crack deflections within safe limits by limiting the
‘erosion’ damage’ to 100%. This is determined by summing the individual erosion damage from
each axle group load in the design load distribution. The 100% damage limit has been based on
performance studies with limits placed on the serviceability index which correlates to limiting the
faulting at transverse joints to the range of 3 to 6 mm at terminal conditions (Packard and Tayabji
1985). Table 4.1 lists work by Packard (Packard 1977) to relate average faulting across joints to
driver comfort conditions.
Austroads 2008
— 2.15 —
Table 4.1: Faulting criteria for major roads (Packard 1977)

Fault Index (PI) Average Faulting Rating
(mm)
0 to 5.0 0-0.8 Excellent
5.1 to 10.0 0.8–1.6 Very Good
10.1 to 15.0 1.6–2.4 Good
15.1 to 20.0 2.4–3.2 Fair
20.1 to 25.0 3.2–4.0 Poor
25.0 4.0 Very poor
The erosion criterion was suggested for use as a guideline and it was always the researchers’
intention that it could be modified according to local experience since climate, drainage, local
factors, and new design innovations may have an influence. To the authors’ knowledge there have
been no known cases in Australia where design engineers have amended the 100% erosion
damage limit for a specific project.
Austroads 2008
— 2.16 —
5 REINFORCEMENT FOR CRCP

Section 9.5 of the Austroads Guide details equations to assess the minimum requirement for
reinforcement in JRCP and CRCP. The equations to estimate the amount of longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement have been based on theoretical modelling with limits derived from
experience (Haber and Cruickshank 1981).
In the USA, AASHTO has reinforcement guidelines in the form of nomographs derived from
algorithms based on performance data. These results or algorithms were not used in the design
procedure adopted by Austroads.
The design procedure and limits are based on the production of evenly spaced ‘tight’ transverse
cracks based on the premise that the concrete will shrink and expand, there is interlayer friction
and the reinforcement will hold the cracks together. The two equations used to derive those in the
Guide are based on balancing the bond force between the concrete and steel with the tensile
strength of the concrete, that is:
fb Lcr ∑πd = fct Ac 1
Where
fb = is the average bond strength
fct = concrete tensile strength
Lcr = theoretical critical spacing of cracks
d = diameter of reinforcement
Ac = area of concrete related to reinforcement.
The second important equation is:

r = (∑πd2) / 4Ac 2
In this equation r is the ratio of reinforcement area to the area of concrete.
Based on experience in Australia, the minimum amount of longitudinal reinforcement to achieve a

suitable crack pattern was set at 0.6% in the early 1990s. This minimum limit has been raised in
recent years based on further pavement performance studies at the RTA, NSW.
Probably one of the shortcomings of the reinforcement procedure in the Guide is the lack of
attention to placing an upper bound to concrete strength, such that the reinforcement will not yield
and the crack widths become larger than desired.
Austroads 2008
— 2.17 —
6 OVERVIEW OF DESIGN RESULTS

6.1 General
Arising from the changed methodology and criteria in the 1992 Austroads Design Guide, this
commentary would be incomplete without some consideration of relative results for different inputs
and design options. A comparison of thicknesses for a typical major Australian highway traffic load
using a variety of international design guides and Austroads 1992 is given in Hodgkinson (1993)
with interpretations as noted.
Within the 1992 Austroads Guide and because of the additional features of designing for shoulders
and joint types and the addition of the erosion analysis some clear trends emerge from the criteria
used for design. It should be noted that Austroads has no recommended preference for pavement
type. Each pavement type should reach and exceed its design traffic life when designed, detailed
and constructed in accordance with best practice. The following comments provide a basis for
informed consideration by designers.
The example design charts in Chapter 9 (refer to Figures 9.7 to 9.10) use a flexural strength of
4.25 MPa that approximates to a 28 day characteristic compressive strength of 32 MPa. However,
this does not constitute a recommendation by Austroads for concrete strength. The design
procedure can accommodate various concrete strengths and the optimum strength should be
selected by the designer based on considerations of variations in thickness, durability and costs
associated with varying strengths.
6.2 Minimum Thickness Limit

For practical purposes and within the scope of Chapter 9 the tables and nomographs have been
based on traffic volumes (CVAG) in the range 106 to 3x108 and thickness in the range of 150 to
350 mm. These limits should not be interpreted as the limits for concrete pavements but practical
limits for Australian traffic conditions. Constructing road pavements below 150 mm are possible
but require good quality control by the contractor. For further information on the thickness design
for base thicknesses for traffic loadings less than 106 CVAG refer to Chapter 5 of this document.
6.3 Maximum Wheel Load

The upper limit on wheel load for the nomographs is 65 kN and there are no sighted references to
justify this limit. Table 6.1 shows the static load equivalence for various axle groups for a load
safety factor of 1.2 and it is apparent that the upper load limit is sufficient for Australian legal axle
load limits. There is no guidance in Australia or overseas literature on using the thickness design
method for wheel loads exceeding 65 kN.
The use of the design method for forklift trucks and other industrial vehicles is not recommended.
Austroads 2008
— 2.18 —
Table 6.1: Static load equivalence for various commercial vehicle axle groups with a
maximum wheel load of 65 kN and a LSF of 1.2
Static axle Legal limit
Axle group group load
(kN) (kN)
Single axle, single wheel (SS) 108 60
Single axle, dual wheel (SD) 217 90
Dual axle, dual wheel (TAD) 433 165
Triaxle, dual wheel (TRD) 650 200
6.4 Influence of Concrete Shoulders

Across the range of input factors the presence of a concrete shoulder will reduce base thickness
from about 25 mm at lower traffic levels to about 40 to 50 mm at the higher traffic levels.
(Figure 6.1) The 30 years of experience constructing pavements with concrete shoulders in
Australia has shown that concrete shoulders improve pavement performance compared to flexible
pavement shoulders (Zollinger and Barenberg 1989).
330
310
Base Thickness (mm)
290 without shoulder

270
250
230
210 with shoulder
190
170
150
1.0E+06 2.1E+07 4.1E+07 6.1E+07 8.1E+07
CVAGs
Note: Chart for PCP, LSF = 1.1, undowelled joints, effective CBR of 15% and Rural axle load distribution
Figure 6.1: Base thickness for varying CVAGs for plain concrete pavement with and without dowels.
6.5 Relative Influence of Traffic Volumes and Axle Loads

By inspection from the example design charts in the Guide (Figures 9.7 to 9.10) it can be seen that
the influence of axle loads on base thickness is more crucial than that of traffic volumes. For
example, for a PCP with a rural-traffic distribution and with undowelled transverse joints, the
increase in base thickness is approximately equal to the increase in axle loads (i.e. a LSF jump from
1.1 to 1.2). For the same pavement type with an increase of pavement thickness of about 10%,
the traffic volume capacity is doubled.
Also, by inspection of the worked example in Appendix I, only the upper ‘tail’ of axle loads
influences the design (i.e. lower axle loads typically have unlimited repetitions to failure).
Some judgement needs to be exercised in relation to a literal interpretation of the 100% damage
levels. For practical purposes pavement bases are likely to be specified in thickness increments of
5 or 10 mm. It is a characteristic of the design procedure that as a trial thickness approaches the
design thickness, small changes in trial thickness can have a considerable impact on fatigue and
erosion damage. Most designers would specify the base thickness to the nearest 5 mm and
therefore, the cumulative damage is likely to be less than 95%.
Austroads 2008
— 2.19 —
Figure 6.2 shows that at a lower volume of traffic the erosion analysis does not have a significant
influence on design base thickness. As the numbers of vehicles and the severity of the loading
regime increase three trends emerge, namely:
The 100% damage limit will occur for fatigue or erosion damage much more quickly than the
other. It is unlikely that 100% damage can be optimised for both.
For dowelled jointed pavements the fatigue analysis tends to control the joint. This is
explained by the relatively smaller joint faulting at a dowelled joint than at a joint relying on
aggregate interlock and therefore, the lower likelihood of erosion controlling base thickness.
For undowelled jointed pavements the erosion analysis tends to control the base thickness. This is
due to the relatively larger deflections at transverse joints relying on aggregate interlock for load
transfer and therefore, the lower likelihood of flexural fatigue controlling the base thickness.
300
Concrete Base Thickness (mm)
Fatigue related distress Erosion related distress

250
200
150
1.00E+6 3.00E+6 1.00E+7 3.00E+7 1.00E+8

Commercial Vehicle Axle Groups
Figure 6.2: Typical rigid pavement thickness design curve for a specific effective CBR and concrete flexural strength
demonstrating that erosion of the transverse joints is generally the dominant distress mechanism for high-volume vehicle
traffic
6.6 Influence of Pavement Type

The base thickness for a PCP-D, CRCP and JRCP are considered to be the same pavement
thickness and this has been based on experience in the field. A PCP base thickness will always
be significantly higher than a dowelled joint, but the additional cost of concrete is offset by the
additional expense and difficulty of placing dowels when slipforming concrete.
In arriving at the optimum economic design there is justification in considering the combination of
pavement type and subbase before arriving at the preferred design.
Austroads 2008
— 2.20 —
REFERENCES
Austroads 1992, Pavement design: a guide to the structural design of road pavements, AP17/92, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Ayton, GP 1993, ‘Concrete highway pavements in Australia’, International Conference on Concrete

Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, 5th, 1993, Purdue University, Indiana, USA, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana, vol.1, pp.19-30.
Haber, E. & Cruickshank, J. 1981, ‘Design procedure for CRCP based on theoretical considerations and
service behaviour’, International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design, 2nd, 1981, West
Lafayette, Indiana, USA, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, pp.231-7.
Heinrichs, KW, Liu, MJ, Darter, MI, Carpenter, SH & Ioannides, AM 1988, Rigid pavement analysis and
design, FHWA-RD-88-068, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia, USA.
Hodgkinson, J 1993, ‘Contemporary design methods for concrete highway pavements’, Concrete Institute of
Australia Conference, 16th, 1993, Melbourne, Victoria, Concrete Institute of Australia, North Sydney,
NSW, pp.477-92.
NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
Packard, RG 1977, ‘Design considerations for control of joint faulting of undowelled pavements’. International
Conference on Concrete Pavement Design, 1977, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, pp.121-36
Packard, R & Ray, GK 1986, ‘Update of Portland cement concrete pavement design’, in Sanford, PH,(ed),
Solutions for pavement rehabilitation problems, American Society of Civil Engineers. Highway
Division, Arlington, Texas.
Packard, R & Tayabji, S 1985, ‘New PCA thickness design procedure for concrete highway and street
pavements’, International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design And Rehabilitation, 3rd, 1985,
West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, Purdue University School of Engineering, West Lafayette, Indiana, pp.
225-36.
Portland Cement Association 1984, Thickness design for concrete highway and street pavements, PCA,
Skokie, Illinois, USA.
Ray, MA 1981, ‘European synthesis on drainage subbase erodibility and load transfer in concrete
pavements’, International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design, 2nd, 1981, West Lafayette,
Indiana, USA, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, pp.27-42.
Roads and Traffic Authority 1996, Concrete pavement manual: design and construction, edition 2, RTA,
Sydney, NSW.
Standards Australia 2001, Concrete structures, AS 3600:2001, Standards Australia, Strathfield, NSW.
Vorobieff, G 1998, Australian concrete road training manual, edition 1.4, Head to Head International,
Sydney, NSW.
Westergaard, HM 1926, ‘Computation of stresses in concrete roads’, Highway Research Board Proceedings,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, vol.5, part1, pp.90-112.
Austroads 2008
— 2.21 —
Yoder, EJ 1978, ‘Design principles and practices: concrete pavements’, Australian Road Research Board
(ARRB) Conference, 9th, 1978, Brisbane, ARRB, Vermont South, Vic., vol.9, no.1, pp.149-71.
Zollinger, DG & Barenberg, EJ 1989, ‘A mechanistic based design procedure for jointed concrete
pavements’, International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, 4th, 1989,
West Lafayette, USA, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, pp.75-97.
Austroads 2008
— 2.22 —

Chapter 3: Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2 Pavement Structural
Design
Geoff Jameson
December 2007
SUMMARY
This report records the work undertaken to revise the Austroads Pavement Design – A Guide to
the Structural Design of Road Pavements for publication in 2008 as Austroads Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 2 Pavement Structural Design. The Guide was initially published by the National
Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) in 1987 and subsequently revised and
re-issued by Austroads in 1992 and 2004.
In terms of the design of flexible pavements, the work undertaken to develop the previous edition
of the Guide plus its predecessor, the Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design, has been
well-documented by Potter (Chapter 1 of this report).
This report records the work undertaken to revise the guidelines for the design of flexible
pavements for the 2004 edition of the Austroads Guide (Austroads 2004) and 2008 edition of the
Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2 (Austroads 2008).
The major changes to the Austroads guidelines are:

changes to the pavement response model, including the use of a full Standard Axle rather
than a half axle loading to calculate critical strains
improved procedures for estimating the design moduli of selected subgrade materials and
unbound granular materials
improved methods of estimating asphalt design moduli, including the derivation of design
moduli from measured moduli obtained using the indirect tensile test
revision of the subgrade strain criterion for application with the full Standard Axle load
procedures to enable design to a desired reliability of the constructed pavement outlasting
the design traffic
modification to the cemented materials fatigue and asphalt fatigue relationships to include
variable factors to enable design to a desired project reliability
significant revision to the procedures used to calculate the design traffic, including a
database of traffic load distributions obtained at over 100 WIM sites throughout Australia.
This report does not address the changes made to Chapter 9 of the 1992 Guide – the Design of
Rigid Pavements – which is the subject of another report in this document (Chapter 4). In addition,
Chapter 5 covers the development of pavement design procedures for lightly-trafficked roads.
Austroads 2008
— 3.i —
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2 ESTABLISHMENT OF WORKING GROUPS TO REVISE THE 1987 GUIDE .............. 2
3 GRANULAR PAVEMENTS WITH THIN BITUMINOUS SURFACINGS........................ 5
4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MECHANISTIC PROCEDURE FOR FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENTS.................................................................................................................. 6
4.1 Response Model ............................................................................................................ 6
4.2 Elastic Characterisation .................................................................................................. 7
4.2.1 Isotropic or Anisotropic Characterisation? ........................................................ 7
4.2.2 Values for Poisson’s Ratios .............................................................................. 7
4.2.3 Relationship between Subgrade Modulus and CBR......................................... 7
4.2.4 Modulus of Selected Subgrade Materials ......................................................... 8
4.2.5 Sublayering of Granular Materials and Assignment of Moduli .......................... 8
4.2.6 Modulus of the Top Sublayer of Granular Material ........................................... 9
4.2.7 Modulus of Granular Material Overlying a Cemented Layer........................... 10
4.2.8 Modulus of Cemented Materials ..................................................................... 10
4.2.9 Characterisation of Cracked Cemented Materials .......................................... 12
4.2.10 Characterisation of Asphalt............................................................................. 12
4.3 Performance Relationships........................................................................................... 17
4.3.1 Subgrade Strain Criterion ............................................................................... 17
4.3.2 Fatigue Relationship for Cemented Materials................................................. 18
4.3.3 Fatigue Relationship for Asphalt..................................................................... 20
5 DESIGN TRAFFIC........................................................................................................ 25
5.1 Units of Loading .......................................................................................................... 25
5.2 Traffic Load Distributions .............................................................................................. 27
6 PROJECT RELIABILITY.............................................................................................. 29
6.1 Definition .......................................................................................................... 29
6.2 Procedures in 1992 the Guide ...................................................................................... 29
6.3 Development of Procedures in the Draft 2001 Guide ................................................... 29
6.4 Development of Procedures in the 2004 Guide............................................................ 31
7 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 33
8 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX A ORIGINS OF UNBOUND GRANULAR THICKNESS CHART ...................... 37
APPENDIX B CHACTERISATION OF GRANULAR MATERIALS AND ............................ 38
DEVELOPMENT OF A SUBGRADE STRAIN CRITERION
APPENDIX C GRANULAR MATERIALS MODULI UNDER ASPHALT AND ..................... 60
CEMENTED MATERIALS (APRIL 1998)
APPENDIX D GRANULAR MATERIALS MODULI UNDER ASPHALT AND ..................... 69
CEMENTED MATERIALS (JUNE 2003)
APPENDIX E RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE ..................... 75
STRENGTH AND FLEXURAL MODULUS FOR CEMENTED MATERIALS
APPENDIX F DISCUSSION NOTE OF ESTIMATING CEMENTED MATERIALS ............. 79
MODULUS FROM UCS (JUNE 2000)
Austroads 2008
— 3.ii —
APPENDIX G DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIP TO ADJUST ITT MODULUS ........... 83

FROM TEST LOADING RATE TO OPERATING SPEED IN-SERVICE
APPENDIX H DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIP TO ADJUST MODULUS FROM....... 87
MEASUREMENT TEMPERATURE TO WMAPT
APPENDIX I.. DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIP TO ADJUST ITT MODULUS ........... 90
FROM TEST SPECIEMEN AIR VOIDS TO IN-SERVICE AIR VOIDS
APPENDIX J. DEVELOPMENT OF PRESUMPTIVE TRAFFIC LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS ... 92
Austroads 2008
— 3.iii —
TABLES
Table 4.1: Reliability traffic multipliers for asphalt surfaced cemented treated base
pavements ...................................................................................................... 20
Table 4.2: 2004 Guide suggested reliability factors for cemented materials fatigue ....... 20
Table 4.3: Reliability traffic multipliers for full depth asphalt pavements ......................... 23
Table 4.4: 2004 Guide suggested reliability factors (RF) for asphalt fatigue ................... 23
Table 5.1: Axle group loads which cause equal damage as a standard axle .................. 25
Table 5.2: Distress mode strain dependency .................................................................. 26
Table 5.3: Characteristics of presumptive traffic load distributions (TLDs) for urban
and rural roads................................................................................................ 27
Table 6.1: Average project reliabilities of outlasting design traffic for flexible
pavements (draft 2001 Guide) ........................................................................ 30
Table 6.2: Traffic multipliers to outlast the design traffic.................................................. 31
Table 6.3: Traffic multipliers to outlast the design period ................................................ 31
FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Standard Axle loading used in Austroads pavement design model for
mechanistic design of flexible pavements ........................................................ 6
Figure 4.2: Comparison of Brown’s (1973) loading time equation and 1/V
approximation ................................................................................................. 14
Figure 4:3: Relationship to estimate moduli at vehicle design speeds from ITT ............... 16
Figure 4.4: Comparison of allowable loadings in terms of asphalt fatigue of 1987
Guide and draft 2001 Guide with and without use of a shift factor ................. 22
Austroads 2008
— 3.iv —
1 INTRODUCTION
This report records the work undertaken to revise the Pavement Design – A Guide to the Structural
Design of Road Pavements for publication in 2004 and subsequently in 2008 as Guide to
Pavement Technology Part 2 Pavement Structural Design . The Guide was initially published by
the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) in 1987 and subsequently
revised and re-issued by Austroads in 1992.
In terms of the design of flexible pavements, the work undertaken to develop the 1992 edition of
the Guide, plus its predecessor, the Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design (NAASRA
1979), has been well-documented by Potter (1997) (refer Chapter 1 of this report).
The work undertaken to develop the guidelines for design of new rigid pavements in the 2004
Guide is described by Vorobieff (refer Chapter 4 of this report). In addition, Chapter 5 covers the
development of pavement design procedures for lightly-trafficked roads.
Austroads 2008
— 3.1 —
2 ESTABLISHMENT OF WORKING GROUPS TO REVISE

THE 1987 GUIDE
In 1989, the (then) Austroads Pavement Research Group (APRG) established a Working Group to
revise the rigid pavement design guidelines of the 1987 Guide. The 1987 Guide had been
published without major revision to the IGPTD procedures that had been based on the 1966 US
Portland Cement Association (PCA) method for thickness design. This review was warranted in
view of PCA’s revision of their design method in 1984.
The Working Group (WG) for the Design of Rigid Pavements comprised:
Mr Ed Haber Department of Main Roads, NSW (Convenor)
Mr David Potter Australian Road Research Board
Mr Geoff Jameson Country Roads Board, Victoria
Mr John Hodgkinson Cement & Concrete Association of Australia (Federal Office)
Mr Alan Pearson Cement & Concrete Association of Australia (NSW Office).
The revised procedures for rigid pavement design were published in the 1992 Austroads Guide.
The development of these procedures is discussed by Vorobieff (refer Chapter 4 of this report).
In late 1993, APRG established a Working Group on Asphalt Characterisation with the task of
revising the text of Chapter 6 of the 1992 Guide. Membership of this Working Group comprised:
Mr David Potter ARRB Transport Research (Convenor)
Mr Mike Butcher Department of Road Transport, South Australia
Mr Allan Jones Queensland Department of Main Roads
Dr Peter Kadar CERTS International
Mr John Lancaster Pioneer Road Services
Mr Geoff Jameson ARRB Transport Research
Mr Kieran Sharp ARRB Transport Research
Also established in late 1993 was an Austroads Working Group on Reliability of Pavement Design.
Membership of this Working Group comprised:
Mr David Potter ARRB Transport Research (Convenor)
Mr Geoff Ayton Roads &Traffic Authority, NSW
Mr Ian Rickards Pioneer Road Services
Mr George Vorobieff Cement and Concrete Association of Australia (C&CAA)
Under the direction of this Working Group, ARRB TR produced two substantial reports (Moffatt et
al. 1998, Potter et al. 1996;) which formed the basis of the reliability procedures adopted in the
2004 Austroads Guide.
Austroads 2008
— 3.2 —
In 1998 APRG established a Reference Group for the revision of the 1992 Austroads Guide.
Members of the Reference Group comprised:
Mr Lance Midgley VicRoads (Convenor)
Mr Kieran Sharp ARRB Transport Research
Mr Chris Mathias Transport SA
Mr Frank Butkus Main Roads Western Australia
Ms Narelle Dobson Queensland Department of Main Roads
Mr Peter Tamsett Roads & Traffic Authority, NSW
Mr David Dash Roads & Traffic Authority, NSW
Mr Geoff Ayton Roads & Traffic Authority, NSW
Mr Greg Arnold Transit New Zealand
Mr David Alabaster Transit New Zealand (replacing Greg Arnold)
Mr Andrew Papacostas VicRoads
Mr Ralph Rallings Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Tasmania
Mr David Mangan Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (AAPA)
Mr George Vorobieff Australian Stabilisation Industry Association
Mr David Chatwin C&CAA
Mr Scott Matthews C&CAA (replacing David Chatwin)
Mr David Potter Consultant
Mr Geoff Youdale Consultant.
Throughout this report this group is referred to as the 2001 Guide Reference Group (RG).
This Reference Group produced the 2001 Austroads Pavement Design Guide (Final Draft) in
November 2001, which was issued as a draft for evaluation by users.
In late 2002 APRG re-established the Reference Group to review comments on the draft 2001
Guide and finalise the text of the 2004 Guide. Members of the 2004 Guide Reference Group
comprised:
Mr Steve Brown VicRoads (Convenor)
Mr Chris Mathias Transport SA
Mr Frank Butkus Main Roads Western Australia
Mr David Alabaster Transit New Zealand
Mr Scott Matthews C&CAA
Mr Geoff Youdale Consultant.
Throughout this report this group is referred to as the 2004 Guide Reference Group (RG).
Austroads 2008
— 3.3 —
In 2006 and 2007, Austroads Pavement Structures Reference Group (PSRG) reviewed the 2004
Guide and made several changes to the text to produce Guide to Pavement Technology – Part 2:
Pavement Structural Design in 2008. Members of PSRG comprised:
Mr Allan Jones Queensland Department of Main Roads (Convenor)
Mr Geoff Jameson ARRB Group
Mr Chris Mathias Department Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, SA
Mr Ross Keeley Main Roads Western Australia
Mr David Alabaster Transit New Zealand
Mr Con Tsemtsidis Cement Concrete and Aggregates Australia.
As the changes to the design guidelines in 2008 were minor compared to those that occurred with
the 2004 Guide, this report largely discusses the changes made in the publication of the 2004
Guide. However, as described in Section 4.2.10, a change was made in the 2008 Guide to the
procedures to determine asphalt design moduli from the modulus measured using the indirect
tensile test.
Austroads 2008
— 3.4 —

SURFACINGS
The 2004 Guide RG decided to retain the CBR-Thickness-Traffic chart (Figure 8.4 of the Guide) for
the design of granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacings because it was the consensus
view of pavement designers that the field performance of pavements designed in accordance with
it was consistent with design expectations.
Jameson (1996) reviewed the origins of Figure 8.4, and, as an extract of this report is included
Appendix A of Chapter 1 of this document, it is not repeated here. Further details of interest are
also contained in Chapter 1.
Briefly, this design chart evolved from the 1940s Californian State Highway design thickness
curves. These curves were then refined and extended by the UK Road Research Laboratory.
With minor modifications, the curves have been widely used by Australian State Road Authorities
for over 30 years. Whilst there has been no research undertaken to verify the curves, a limited
survey of experienced engineers indicated that pavements designed using these charts and
constructed in accordance with state road authority specifications had about a 90% chance of
exceeding the design traffic loading. This survey was largely based on the perceived performance
of pavements in other than wet tropical areas of Australia. Due to the moisture-sensitivity nature of
unbound granular pavements, the performance of this type of pavement in heavily-trafficked, wet
tropical areas is variable.
In the draft 2001 Guide it had been proposed to provide Reliability Traffic Multipliers (RTM) to
adjust the design traffic to enable design to a selected reliability of the project outlasting the design
traffic. However, comments received on the draft 2001 Guide expressed concern about the
changes in thickness of unbound granular pavements that would result for the use of the proposed
RTMs. The 2004 Guide RG considered that appropriate levels of reliability are built into this
empirical chart across the range of design traffic levels covered in the Guide rather than the 90%
reliability assumed in the development of RTM. Consequently, the 2004 Guide RG decided to
delete the RTMs for unbound granular pavements.
Implicit in the design procedure for granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacings
(Figure 8.4), is a terminal condition which is considered to be unacceptable and hence signifies the
end of life of the pavement. According to Potter (1997) (refer Part 1 of this report), the terminal
conditions may be considered to be:
an average rut depth of about 20 mm

a terminal roughness about three times the initial roughness.
Austroads 2008
— 3.5 —
4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MECHANISTIC PROCEDURE

FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
4.1 Response Model
The Austroads mechanistic pavement design model predicts the elastic response of a selected
pavement under a Standard Axle load. This predicted response is then used to estimate the
allowable loading which is determined using performance relationships (refer Section 4.3)
Potter (1997) (refer Chapter 1 of this report) describes the basis for the linear elastic model
adopted in the 1987 and 2004 Guides for the mechanistic design of flexible pavements.
Given the above, the 2004 Guide RG decided to retain the CIRCLY response model. However,
the following changes to the model have resulted in changes in the calculated responses:
In both the 1987 and 2004 Guides responses are calculated under a Standard Axle load. In the
1987 Guide, responses were calculated using only one of the two sets of wheels of a Standard
Axle, as the influence of the other set of wheels was presumed to be insignificant. Since the 1987
Guide was published there have been significant increases in both the thickness and stiffness of
pavements. As such, it can no longer be assumed that the effect of the other set of wheels is
insignificant for all pavement configurations. Hence, full Standard Axle modelling as described in
Figure 4.1 has been adopted for all flexible pavements, consistent with the procedures used for
rigid pavements.
In the 1987 Guide, the tyre-surface contact stress was 550 kPa, a typical value for cross-ply tyres
commonly used in Australia in the past. Radial tyres are now commonly used and inflation
pressures of 500-1000 kPa have been measured in the field (Chowdhury and Rallings 1994). In
recognition of the more damaging effects of radial tyres an amendment to the 1992 Guide issued in
1997 (Austroads 1997) changed the Standard Axle tyre pressure to 750 kPa.
In the late 1990s, improvements were made to the linear elastic model CIRCLY. These
improvements significantly altered the calculated responses within thin asphalt layers.
Figure 4.1: Standard Axle loading used in Austroads pavement design model
for mechanistic design of flexible pavements
Austroads 2008
— 3.6 —
4.2 Elastic Characterisation

4.2.1 Isotropic or Anisotropic Characterisation?
This issue relates to the elastic characterisation of pavement and subgrade materials associated
with the use of CIRCLY. Isotropic materials have the same properties in all directions, whereas
anisotropic materials do not. In the Austroads Guide, bound material are characterised as isotropic
whereas granular materials and subgrades are characterised as cross-anisotropic, with vertical
modulus being twice the horizontal modulus.
Potter (1997) (refer Chapter 1 of this report) provides a detailed description of the reasons behind
this method of characterisation. In summary:
A literature review indicated that there was little evidence of anisotropic behaviour in the cases of
asphalt and cemented materials, while there was definite evidence of anisotropic behaviour in the
cases of granular and subgrade materials.
A response-to-load analysis using finite element modelling (FEM) suggested that the adoption of
anisotropic characterisation of granular materials (with Eν/Eh > 1) within the CIRCLY model would
be ‘a step in the right direction’ towards encompassing their known stress-dependency.
The use of anisotropic characterisation for both granular material and subgrades resulted in
narrower deflection bowls being predicted which were more in line with the shape of measured
deflection bowls.
Consequently, cross-anisotropic characterisation of granular and subgrade materials is adopted in

the Austroads Guide to at least partly compensate for the absence of a lateral stress dependent
mechanism for elastic modulus in the linear elastic model (CIRCLY) adopted. As already
discussed, for asphalt and cemented materials, isotropic characterisation was considered to be
adequate and, hence, was adopted.
4.2.2 Values for Poisson’s Ratios

Potter (refer Chapter 1 of this report) details the origin of the Poisson’s ratios adopted in the 1987
Guide. No change was made to these values in the 2004 or 2008 Guides.
4.2.3 Relationship between Subgrade Modulus and CBR

The linear elastic response model requires that the design subgrade modulus be estimated. As
subgrades are usually characterised in the CBR test in terms of strength rather than resilient
modulus, a procedure was required to estimate subgrade design modulus from CBR test results.
Potter (1997) (refer Section 1 of this report) describes in detail the origins of the E = 10.CBR
relationship adopted in the 1987 Guide.
It should be noted that the relationship E = 10.CBR was derived assuming isotropic
characterisation of the subgrade and hence some designers have questioned its suitability given
the use of anisotropic subgrade characterisation in the Guide. As discussed in Appendix B (Moffatt
and Jameson 1998a), it was estimated that E = 9.1 x CBR1.03 was an equivalent relationship using
anisotropic characterisation. However, the use of this more complex relationship was not
recommended as it did not produce significantly different allowable loadings than the simpler
E = 10.CBR relationship.
Austroads 2008
— 3.7 —
4.2.4 Modulus of Selected Subgrade Materials

In using the 1987 Guide, it was common practice to characterise the elastic properties of selected
subgrade materials in the same manner as for the underlying in situ subgrade.
The 2004 RG was concerned that this practice often resulted in the moduli of selected subgrade
material being higher than those of granular materials placed in the same layer. This practice did
not recognise that the modulus of a selected material depends on the modulus of the layer on
which it is compacted: the entire layer thickness of select material was assumed to have a vertical
modulus of 10 times its CBR regardless of the strength of the underlying material.
Consequently, the 2004 RG decided that the Austroads design model should be changed to
require sublayering of selected subgrade material in a similar manner as for granular materials
(refer Section 4.2.6).
For granular materials, the moduli are calculated for each of five sublayers assuming that, for a
125 mm sublayer thickness, the modulus is double the modulus of the underlying material. For
selected subgrade material it was considered that a greater thickness of material was required to
double the modulus as this would reflect the lower bearing capacity of selected subgrade materials
compared to unbound granular materials. Consequently, the 2004 RG decided to base the
sublayering rules on the assumption that the modulus is two times the modulus of the underlying
material for every 150 mm of selected subgrade material.
This led to the following design rules for selected subgrade materials:
a) Divide the total depth of all selected subgrade materials into five equi-thick sublayers.
b) The vertical modulus of the top sublayer of selected subgrade is the minimum of 10 times the
design CBR of the selected subgrade material and that determined using:
EV top sublayer = EV in situ subgrade × 2(total selectedsubgrade thickness/ 150)

c) The ratio (R) of the moduli (E) of the adjacent sublayers is given by:
1
⎡ E top selected subgrade sublayer ⎤ 5
R = ⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ E in situ subgrade ⎥⎦
d) The modulus of each sublayer may then be calculated from the modulus of the adjacent
underlying sublayer, beginning with the in situ subgrade, the modulus of which is known.
Where the trial pavement configuration includes more than one type of selected subgrade material,
a check needs to be made that the vertical modulus calculated for each sublayer (step (d)) does
not exceed 10 times the design CBR of each selected subgrade material within the sublayer. If
this condition is not met, an alternative trial subgrade configuration needs to be selected.
4.2.5 Sublayering of Granular Materials and Assignment of Moduli

The typical modulus values for unbound granular materials listed in Table 6.3 of the 2004 Guide
are based on the results of triaxial testing undertaken by Youdale (1978) on a range of materials.
The values for base materials are those achieved in the upper portion of the material when
covered by a thin bituminous surfacing.
Austroads 2008
— 3.8 —
As stated by Potter (1997) (refer Chapter 1 of this report):

With the knowledge that:
the modulus of a granular material depends on the stress conditions it is subjected to;
these stress conditions depend on the stiffness(es) of the underlying material(s);
the stress levels decrease within a pavement structure as the depth below the surface
increases; and
in the response model CIRCLY, layers are constrained to having a fixed modulus value;
then it was obvious that the simulation within CIRCLY of actual stress-strain
conditions would be improved for many pavement configurations by considering
the granular material to be comprised of more than one layer, each with a distinct
modulus value.
The rules for determining when the sublayering is necessary and, if so, the
appropriate number of sublayers, together with appropriate modulus for each
sublayer, were presented in Section 8.2.2 of the 1987 Guide.
Potter (1977) (refer Chapter 1 of this report) details the origin of the 1987 Guide sublayering rules.
In reviewing the design method for the Guide, the 2004 Guide RG considered that the 1987 rules
could be inappropriately used by less experienced designers as they allowed the maximum
modulus of a granular material to be developed regardless of the thickness of the granular material
or the strength of the subgrade.
As detailed in Appendix B, the revised rules adopted by the 2004 Guide RG were developed such
that the maximum modulus of a granular material depends on both the granular material thickness
and subgrade strength. These rules are presented in Section 8.2.3 of the Guide.
These new rules significantly changed the calculated asphalt strains for some pavement
configurations and this needed to be taken into account in developing the reliability procedures
(see Section 6).
4.2.6 Modulus of the Top Sublayer of Granular Material

The entries in Table 6.6 of the 1987 Guide were derived from results of a study by Youdale (1983)
wherein a finite element package (PAVAN1) was used to determine modulus values in a granular
material which was surfaced with asphalt and subjected to surface loading representing one side of
a Standard Axle. Potter (1997) (refer Chapter 1 of this report) details aspects of this analysis.
Table 6.6 of the 1987 Guide listed the variation in maximum modulus of the granular material for
various asphalt temperatures. With the wide variety of asphalt mixes currently used, it was
considered more appropriate to modify Table 6.6 for the 2004 Guide so that it gave the variation in
maximum modulus with the modulus of the overlaying material (asphalt and/or cemented material).
Accordingly, based on work detailed in Appendix C, revised granular moduli were developed for
the draft 2001 Guide.
For some pavement configurations these draft 2001 Guide granular moduli were significantly less
than those in the 1987 Guide. Users of the draft Guide expressed concern that these moduli
resulted in low asphalt fatigue lives for thin asphalt-surfaced pavements. It was concluded that
considerably more research was required – possibly involving finite element modelling – before
significant changes to the granular moduli in the 1987 Guide could be made.
Austroads 2008
— 3.9 —
Consequently, the 2004 Guide RG requested that granular moduli be developed which were
reasonably consistent with the values in the 1987 Guide. Using the granular moduli in Table 6.6 of
the 1987 Guide, and assuming the modulus of asphalt at 20°C, 25°C and 30°C was 5,200 MPa,
3,500 MPa and 2,300 MPa respectively, the following relationship was developed for granular
moduli under various thicknesses and stiffnesses of asphalt relative to the value under a sprayed
seal surface (see Appendix D):
1
RGM = min(1, 1.377 − 0.00003804 * ASTH 3 E AC )
Where = relative granular moduli, granular moduli under asphalt

divided by the granular moduli under a sprayed seal surface,
maximum value 1.0 and a
ASTH = thickness of asphalt overlying granular material (mm); and
EAC = asphalt modulus (MPa).
Similar procedures were developed to demonstrate that there was no significant difference in the
maximum top-layer moduli if the material overlying the granular material was cemented rather than
asphalt provided the moduli were the same (Appendix C). Hence the revised Table 6.4 in the 2004
Guide gives the top-layer granular material for various thicknesses and moduli of asphalt and or
cemented material.
4.2.7 Modulus of Granular Material Overlying a Cemented Layer

Potter (1997) (refer Chapter 1 of this report) reports:
Section 8.2.2(1) of the Guide states, “For granular materials placed directly on a
stiff cemented subbase, no sublayering is required”. This statement is based on
results of a finite element analysis undertaken by Youdale. The modelling and
analysis was as outlined above (Section 4.2.7). Six pavements were modelled –
granular thicknesses of 150, 200 and 250 mm on cemented material having
stiffnesses of 2000 and 5000 MPa. The study is reported in Youdale (1984b).
No change was made to these moduli in the 2004 or 2008 Guides.
4.2.8 Modulus of Cemented Materials

The typical modulus values for cemented material listed in Table 6.6 of the 1987 Guide were based
on limited testing undertaken by the Queensland Department of Main Roads (QDMR),
supplemented by test results reported in the literature. The values were revised by the 2004 RG to
reflect current typical design moduli.
Two relationships were presented in Section 6.3.2.3 of the 1987 Guide for estimating the modulus
of cemented material from its UCS value, one for cemented crushed rock and one for cemented
natural gravel:
E = 1814 UCS0.88 + 3500 For cemented crushed rock 2

0.88
E = UCS + 1100 For cemented natural gravel 3
Potter (1997) (refer Chapter 1 of this report ) presents the origin of these equations.
Austroads 2008
— 3.10 —
These relationships were reviewed by Yeo (1997). It was concluded that Otte’s data, from which
the above relationships were derived, was too variable to assign different relationships for the two
types of cemented material. In addition, the draft 2001 Guide RG considered that a simple linear
relationship between UCS and modulus was warranted given this variability. Moffatt and Yeo
(1998) subsequently recommended the following relationship (refer Appendix E):
E flex = 3,000 UCS 4
In late 1999, the draft 2001 Guide RG decided against adopting eqn (4) as the moduli estimated
were considerably higher than the presumptive moduli used by state road authorities.
In a subsequent note prepared for the draft 2001 Guide RG (Appendix F), results reported by
Alderson (1999) were analysed. Alderson reported the following relationship between the flexural
modulus of laboratory beams at 28 days and the UCS of laboratory specimens at 28 days:
E flex lab = 2,460 UCS 5
In this limited study, Alderson also reported that the laboratory flexural moduli were about 2.5 times
higher than those of the field beams. However, the field beams were about 3% lower in density
than the laboratory beams. Correcting for this difference in air voids, the laboratory beam moduli
were about 1.6 times the field beam values. Applying this factor to Alderson’s relationship, the
following relationship was derived to estimate the field 28 day flexural modulus from the UCS tests
of laboratory specimens at 28 days:
E flexfield = 1,500 UCS 6
This relationship was adopted in the draft 2001 Guide.
Comments received on the draft 2001 Guide expressed concern that the moduli predicted using
eqn (6) were higher than common road agency practices. For example:
RTA NSW uses a design modulus of 5000 MPa for 28 day UCS of 4MPa; and
QDMR uses design moduli of 2000 MPa and 5000 MPa for 7 day UCS values of 2 and 3
MPa respectively. For GP cement these are equivalent to 28 day UCS values of about 2.9
MPa and 4.3 MPa respectively.
Whereas eqn (6) allows the mean modulus estimated from a UCS value obtained by testing a
range of materials to be calculated, current practice is to use a conservative estimate of modulus
which reflects the uncertainty associated with estimating the design modulus of a given material
from its UCS. The relationship between UCS and modulus varies with road agency laboratory
testing practices and construction specifications for cemented materials. Consequently, the 2004
Guide RG decided to adopt the following relationship, applicable to UCS values up to 5 MPa:
Austroads 2008
— 3.11 —
EFLEX = k UCS 7
Where EFLEX = flexural modulus of field beams at 28 days moist curing
(MPa);
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength of laboratory specimens
k = values of 1000 to 1,250 are typically used for General
Purpose cements, the value depending on laboratory
testing practices and construction specifications for
cemented materials.
4.2.9 Characterisation of Cracked Cemented Materials

Section 8.5 of the 1987 Guide discusses the possibility of significant life remaining
in a pavement subsequent to the cracking of cemented material, indicating that it is
appropriate to characterise the cracked material as granular material. The
intention of this latter statement is that the cracked material be considered as a
granular material in all respects (2:1 anisotropy, Poisson’s Ratio = 0.35,
sublayering as per Section 8.2.2). Due to an oversight, no guidance was offered
on which of the two sets of entries in Table 6.6 (for Modified and Standard
compactive efforts) was appropriate. The intention was that materials whose initial
stiffnesses were 5000 MPa or more be assigned values corresponding to Modified
compactive effort, and materials with lower stiffnesses be assigned values
corresponding to Standard compactive effort.
Since the 1987 Guide was published, VicRoads and QDMR have characterised cracked cement-
treated crushed rock using a vertical modulus of 500 MPa, a horizontal modulus of 250 MPa and
without sublayering. These authorities considered a well-graded cracked cemented material had
moduli superior to those of the material in the unbound state.
Hence, in the 2004 Guide, cracked cemented materials produced from a well-graded granular
material are assumed to have a presumptive vertical modulus of 500 MPa and a Poisson’s Ratio of
0.35. The layer is not sublayered and is considered to be cross-anisotropic, with a degree of
anisotropy of 2.
4.2.10 Characterisation of Asphalt
1987 Guide
Section 6.4.3 of the 1987 Guide presented a procedure for measuring asphalt moduli and for
estimating modulus using the Shell nomographs (Shell 1978).
At the time the 1987 Guide was published, equipment and test procedures for routinely measuring
resilient modulus were not available. Consequently, most road agencies calculated their design
moduli using the Shell nomographs and:
average values of local mix properties
local Weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature (WMAPT)
a loading time obtained using the relationship = 1/V given in Section 6.4.2.5 of the 1987
Guide.
Austroads 2008
— 3.12 —
The WMAPT was generally used to characterise the pavement damage due to loads applied at
various operating temperatures, even though the 1987 Guide provided two methods: WMAPT and
Pavement Life Multipliers.
The 1987 WG used procedures adapted from the Shell Pavement Design Manual (1978) to
develop a procedure for calculating WMAPTs. The procedure used is included in Appendix 6.1 of
the 2001 Guide. The 1987 WG recognised that there were two significant deficiencies in the use of
WMAPTs to characterise asphalt operating temperature, namely:
it was assumed that loads were applied uniformly throughout the day, with no allowance
made for situations where the hourly loading varied with hourly asphalt temperature; and
the weighting factors used to account for the damage at each operating temperature were
applicable to thick (>150 mm) asphalt layers rather than to thin asphalt layers.
Accordingly, Youdale (1984d) suggested an alternative approach, viz. the use of Pavement Life
Multipliers (PLM) for the design of asphalt-surfaced granular pavements.
To adjust asphalt moduli for the rate of loading, the 1987 WG suggested the following relationship
between loading time of a step-shaped pulse (t, seconds) and vehicle speed (V, km/h):
1
t = 8
V
Eqn (8) seems to be an approximation of the following equation developed by Brown (1973):
logt = 0.0005T − 0.2 − 0.94logV 9

Where
t = loading time (s)
V = vehicle speed (km/h)
T = asphalt thickness (mm).
Eqn (8) is compared in Figure 4.2 with eqn (9) for various thicknesses of asphalt.
It is apparent from Figure 4.2 that the commonly used 1/V formula is a reasonable approximation
to Brown’s relationship for asphalt thicknesses of 200 mm, except for low speeds, where it
overestimates loading time.
Austroads 2008
— 3.13 —
0.10
0.09
0.08
Loading Time (secs) 0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Vehicle Speed (km/h)
T=100mm T=150 mm T=200mm 1/V
Figure 4.2: Comparison of Brown’s (1973) loading time equation and 1/V approximation
2004 Guide
The 2004 RG decided to include the following two methods of estimating asphalt design moduli:
the resilient modulus measured using the standard indirect tensile test (ITT) adjusted to the
in-service temperature (WMAPT) and for the rate of loading in the road-bed
use of the Shell nomographs to estimate the bitumen properties and mix volumetrics and the
in-service temperature (WMAPT) and rate of loading in the road-bed.
The 2004 RG decided to use the WMAPT as the means of characterising the damage to the
pavement over its range of operating temperatures as most road authorities used WMAPT values.
The 2004 Guide RG also decided to delete the PLM from the 2004 Guide as they had been seldom
used.
Jameson and Hopman (2000) developed an approach for adjusting the modulus for the rate of
loading based on modelling the viscoelastic characteristics of asphalt. The RG considered this
approach but decided to retain the 1/V formula for use with the Shell nomographs. The main
reasons for this were as follows:
Although Jameson and Hopman (2000) had developed a procedure for the variation in
loading time with asphalt depth, only the relationship for a 100 mm thick layer was applicable
as the temperature characterisation (WMAPT) was calculated only for a 100 mm depth of
asphalt rather than allowing for the variation in temperature with asphalt depth. If the more
complex approach to loading time provided by Jameson and Hopman were to be adopted
then a more complex approach to temperature was also required.
The Jameson and Hopman loading time relationship for 100 mm depth was similar to the
simpler 1/V formula except for slow (<40 km/h) traffic speeds.
If the ITT results are to be used to estimate the design moduli, then procedures are required to
adjust the measured ITT moduli at 40 ms rise time to the in-service value at the design vehicle
speed. As the ITT uses neither a step-shaped pulse nor a sinusoidal pulse, the simple t = 1/V
formula is not appropriate.
Austroads 2008
— 3.14 —
Accordingly, the following relationship was derived and adopted in the 2004 Guide.
Modulus at speed V
= 0.17V0.365
ITT modulus 10
The derivation of this procedure is given in Appendix G. A procedure was also required to adjust
the ITT results from the measurement temperature (25°C) to the operating temperature (WMAPT).
Appendix H details the method used to develop the following relationship, which was also adopted
in the 2004 Guide:
Modulus at WMAPT
= exp( −0.08(WMAPT − 25)) 11
Modulus at 25 o C
Appendix I details the origins of the procedure adopted to adjust the moduli from the air voids of
the measured specimen to the in-service air voids.
The typical moduli values for asphalt listed in Table 6.10 of the Guide are based on extensive
indirect tensile (MATTA) testing conducted by VicRoads, RTA NSW and QDMR of laboratory-
manufactured mixes conforming to their specifications. The data includes specimens compacted
using the Marshall drop hammer and Gyratory compactor. Results obtained on specimens that
had a test air void level other than 5% were corrected to 5% using the relationship given in
Equation 6.5 of the Guide.
2008 Guide
The 2004 Guide procedure assumes that although the flexural beam test starts out as haversine
loading it reverts to sinusoidal loading as the test progresses due to deformation of the beam. This
assumption is consistent with the conclusions of Pronk and Erkens (2002). Had the test been
assumed to apply haversine loading, and the above analysis repeated, the factors used to correct
the ITT would have been considerably higher as seen from Figure 4:3.
An inspection of the test indicates that the loading pulse is between a haversine and sinusoidal
shape. Consequently, in 2007 the Austroads Pavement Structures Reference Group decided to
review equation 10.
Due to uncertainty as to the loading pulse shape (i.e. haversine or sinusoidal) in the Austroads
flexural moduli test it was decide to utilise the results of comparative testing in the United Kingdom.
Nunn and Bowskill (1992) have reported laboratory measurements that indicate that ITT modulus
for a rise time of 125 ms measured with the NAT produces a modulus equivalent to the flexural
modulus measured at a sinusoidal frequency of 2.5 Hz. However as investigated by Nunn (1996),
the modulus obtained using the NAT tends to be lower than that obtained using the MATTA, in part
due to different methods of calculating the resilient strains. (The MATTA strains are calculated
using the ASTM method, and these are lower than the strains calculated using the NAT method).
Austroads 2008
— 3.15 —
Based on Nunn
0.365
1.1 Modulus ratio = 0.19x
Assuming haversine loading
Modulus ratio = 0.22 V0.365
1.0
Design modulus/ IDT modulus (40 ms)
0.9
0.8
Austroads 2004 Guide

0.7
assuming sinusoidal loading
Modulus ratio = 0.17 V0.365
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Heavy vehicle design speed (km/h)
Figure 4:3: Relationship to estimate moduli at vehicle design speeds from ITT
Using the model devised by Burger, Nunn (1996) calculated that the equivalent sinusoidal
frequency using the ASTM method is about 90% higher than the frequency using the NAT method.
This implies that using the MATTA moduli at a rise time of 125 ms is equivalent to those measured
with the flexural beam test at a sinusoidal frequency of 4.7 Hz. By extrapolation the MATTA ITT
modulus at a rise time of 40 ms is similar to the flexural modulus under 14.8 Hz sinusoidal loading.
Using equation G.3 Appendix G, this frequency equates to a heavy vehicle speed of about 93
km/h.
This equivalent frequency is in reasonable agreement with the ARRB measured data, as the
equivalent frequency is about midway between the frequency of 20 Hz obtained from the
measured results assuming sinusoidal loading and a frequency of 10 Hz had haversine loading
been assumed in analysing the measured results. Moreover, a 40 ms rise time ITT mean modulus
of C320 mix measured by Butcher and van Loon (2003), was similar to that calculated using the
Shell nomographs using a sinusoidal frequency of 14.5 Hz. This frequency is a very close match
to the 14.8 Hz equivalent frequency obtained above based on Nunn’s data.
Hence the following procedure was used to revise the Austroads relationship for Part 2 of the
Guide to Pavement Technology. Using eqn G.4 Appendix G, the loading frequencies for a range
of vehicle speeds were calculated and the ratios of the moduli to the values at 14.8 Hz calculated.
Note that, as the flexural modulus at 14.8 Hz was assumed to be equivalent to an ITT modulus at
40 ms, these moduli ratios were equivalent to the ratios of the modulus at the design traffic speed
to the ITT modulus at 40 ms. A regression analysis of this data yielded the following relationship:
Modulus at speed V
= 0.19V 0.365
Modulus at test loading rate
This relationship is recommended for use in Part 2 of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology.
Austroads 2008
— 3.16 —
4.3 Performance Relationships

4.3.1 Subgrade Strain Criterion
The 1987 WG decided to follow the approach adopted by Shell (1978) and select the maximum
vertical strain generated at the top of the subgrade (by a Standard Axle) as the pavement response
best suited for the prediction of allowable traffic before permanent deformation in the granular
layers and subgrade reached an unacceptable level.
Potter (1997) (refer Chapter 1 of this report ) details the origin of the 1987 Guide subgrade strain
criterion.
Due to changes in the 2004 Guide to the granular materials characterisation, the subgrade strain
criterion needed to be revised. Using a method similar to that used by Youdale (1984c), Moffatt
and Jameson (1998a) derived the following relationship:
N = (9300/με )7 14
Where N the allowable number of Standard Axles of loading before an
unacceptable level of rutting and roughness;
με the vertical compressive strain under a Standard Axle
(microstrain) predicted using the Austroads procedures (see
also Appendix B).
Note that Figure 8.4 of the 1992 Guide, from which this relationship was derived, expresses the
allowable loading in terms of Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA). In the mechanistic design of new
pavements, strains are calculated under a Standard Axle and hence it is more appropriate to also
express the allowable loading in terms of Standard Axles of loading rather than ESA (refer Section
4.4.1). Consequently, it was necessary to convert the Figure 8.4 allowable loading from ESA to
Standard Axles. A factor of 1.1 was used by Moffatt and Jameson (1998a), in line with Section 7.5
of the 1987 Guide.
Note that the subgrade strain criterion is based on the correlation of strains calculated using the
Austroads procedure with the observed allowable loading to a terminal amount of rutting and
roughness (see Section 3) due to deformation of the granular layers and subgrade.
In the draft 2001 Guide it had been proposed that Reliability Traffic Multipliers (RTM) be provided
to adjust the design traffic to enable design to a selected reliability of the project outlasting the
design traffic (refer Section 6.3). Comments received on the draft 2001 Guide expressed concern
about the changes in thickness of unbound granular pavements that would result from the use of
the proposed RTMs. The 2004 Guide RG considered that appropriate levels of reliability were
built into the Figure 8.4 empirical chart across the range of design traffic levels covered in the
Guide rather than the 90% reliability assumed in the development of the RTM.
Moreover, the 2004 RG considered that a simpler approach to reliability would be to delete the
RTM and incorporate variable factors for reliability in the performance relationships. As the
subgrade strain relationship was derived from Figure 8.4, and as appropriate levels of reliability
were incorporated into this empirical chart, there was no need to provide a Reliability Factor for this
performance relationship. However, as discussed in Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, Reliability Factors
were required for the cemented materials fatigue and asphalt fatigue relationships.
Austroads 2008
— 3.17 —
4.3.2 Fatigue Relationship for Cemented Materials

The performance relationship in the 1987 Guide was:
N = (K/με)18 15
where N is the number of repetitions of tensile strain at the bottom of the cemented layer before
fatigue failure occurs, i.e. when the level of this strain is μ∈ microstrain. The numerator K depends
on the stiffness of the material as follows:

material (MPa)
2000 280
5000 200
10,000 150
Potter (1997) (refer Chapter 1 of this report) details the development of these relationships.
In November 1997, a revision to the Guide was issued by Austroads (1997) which replaced eqn
(15) with the following:
N = (K/με)12 16
and the numerator K depended on the stiffness of the material as follows:

material (MPa)
2000 440
3500 350
5000 310
10,000 260
15,000 240
Subsequent to the 1987 WG’s adoption of the relationships with exponent 18,
Angell (1988), in the course of development of a pavement design manual for Main
Roads, undertook a further review of the literature and reported fatigue exponents
of 32, 9, 12.7, 12.2 and 12 for relationships developed by workers in four countries.
In light of this, together with his proposition that, if the true exponent were 18, then
cement-treated pavements in Queensland would be failing very early in their
design life because of vehicle overloading, Angell opted for an exponent of 12 and
derived numerator (K1) values such that the revised relationships (in his words)
“allow approximately the same levels of strain as the relationships previously
used”. Angell developed the following relationships:
N = (K/με)12 17
with values of K as follows:
Austroads 2008
— 3.18 —

material (MPa)
2000 440
5000 310
15,000 240
The WG was apprised of MRDQ’s intention to adopt these revised relationships

while the original (1987 version) Guide was in press.
These relationships were adopted in the Austroads Pavement Design Guide Revision Note (1997),
together with additional relationships for materials with moduli of 3500 and 10,000 MPa. The
additional relationships were determined from the following general relationship derived (Jameson
et al. (1995)) from Angell’s (1988) three relationships:
(
⎡ 112,664/E 0.804 + 190.7 ⎤
N = ⎢
) 12
18
⎥
⎣ με ⎦
The issue of the Revision Note (Austroads 1997) was prompted by a literature review conducted
by Jameson (1995) and by the findings of an accelerated loading trial on cemented materials
(Jameson et al. 1995).
For the draft 2001 Guide, eqn (18) was simplified as follows:
(
⎡ 113,000/E 0.804 + 191 ⎤
N = ⎢
) 12
19
⎥
⎣ με ⎦
Where N = allowable number of repetitions of the load;
με = tensile strain produced by the load (microstrain); and
Ε = cemented material modulus (MPa).
In the draft 2001 Guide, to design to a desired project reliability, the design traffic was adjusted
using Reliability Traffic Multipliers (RTM). Comments received on the draft 2001 Guide, indicated
that the cemented material fatigue lives were significantly under-predicted and modification to the
procedures were required.
The 2004 RG considered that a simpler approach to reliability would be to delete the RTM and
incorporate a variable factor for reliability in the cemented materials fatigue relationship. It was
considered that eqn (18) resulted in 95% reliability of a project outlasting the design traffic. To
provide adjustment factors to enable design to other reliabilities, the variability of performance
between projects was required. Shown in Table 4.1 are the RTM given by Jameson and Moffatt
(2001) for a pavement comprising up to 150 mm of asphalt on cemented materials. For this
pavement type the dominant distress mode is cemented materials fatigue.
Austroads 2008
— 3.19 —
Table 4.1: Reliability traffic multipliers for asphalt surfaced cemented treated base pavements
Desired project reliability
80% 85% 90% 95% 97.5%
2001 draft Guide RTMs: average reliability of design 0.70 1.0 1.6 3.3 6.5
process 85%
Equivalent RTMs for an average reliability of design 0.21 0.30 0.48 1.0 2.0
process 95%
These RTM assume that the average reliability of the design process is 85% (RTM=1 for a desired
project reliability of 85%). As stated above, the 2004 Guide considered the above reliability of the
design process was 95% rather than 85%. Consequently, Table 4.1 shows the adjusted RTMs for
an average reliability of 95% obtained by dividing the 85% RTM values by 3.3.
Rather than provide for project reliability by adjusting the design traffic using these 95% RTM
values, the 2004 Guide RG simplified the process by providing factors to the allowable loading
predicted using the cemented materials fatigue relationship. These factors are the inverse of the
95% RTM values given in Table 4.1. Hence the following cemented materials fatigue relationship
was adopted in the 2004 Guide:
⎡ ⎛113,000/E 0.804 + 191⎞ ⎤

12 20
⎢⎜ ⎟⎥
N = RF⎢ ⎝ ⎠
⎥
⎢ με ⎥
⎣ ⎦
με = tensile strain produced by the load (microstrain); and
Ε = cemented material modulus (MPa).
RF = reliability factor for cemented materials fatigue (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2: 2004 Guide suggested reliability factors for cemented materials fatigue
Desired Project Reliability
80% 85% 90% 95% 97.5%
4.7 3.3 2.0 1.0 0.5
4.3.3 Fatigue Relationship for Asphalt

After due consideration, detailed by Potter (1997) (refer Chapter 1 of this report ), the 1987 WG
adopted the Shell relationship for recommended use in the Guide. However, as noted by Potter :
It is now well understood that the Shell relationship is for fatigue failure in the laboratory and not
in the field. This fact was not appreciated by the WG at the time. Commenting on the Shell
relationship, Anderson stated that it is “supposedly directly applicable to design, allowing for
crack propagation through the asphalt.” In discussing desirable attributes of a relationship,
Anderson states:
Consideration should be given to crack propagation and tolerable cracking as well as the
possibility of crack healing occurring under intermittent loading. Shell (1978) report field to
laboratory fatigue life correction factors of 10-20.
Austroads 2008
— 3.20 —
Further, it has been noted above that the Shell relationship, as adopted, was considered by the
WG to provide allowance for crack propagation and to tolerate some cracking in the field.
Hence, while it was the desire and the intention of the WG that the adopted relationship
incorporate laboratory-to-field corrections, the relationship ultimately adopted contains no such
correction.
A detailed review of the development of the Shell laboratory fatigue relationships (including
materials tested, test conditions, etc.), together with Shell’s use of correction factors in its
design procedure, is provided in Potter (1997).
As part of the development of the draft 2001 Guide, Jameson (1999) reviewed existing information
on the relationship between asphalt fatigue observed in the field (mainly from accelerated loading
trials) and performance predicted using the Austroads design procedures, including the Shell
laboratory fatigue relationship. It was noted that the observed asphalt fatigue lives generally
exceeded the predicted lives and Jameson concluded that the use of a laboratory-field correction
factor, or shift factor, to the Shell laboratory fatigue relationship needed to be considered for
adoption with the project reliability procedures adopted in the draft 2001 Guide.
The draft 2001 Guide RG considered the effects on asphalt fatigue life of the following changes
between the 1987 and draft 2001 Guides:
granular materials characterisation
full Standard Axle modelling, including an increase in contact tyre-surface stress to 750 kPa.
These changes reduced the predicted asphalt fatigue life, with the effect varying markedly with
pavement configuration as shown in Figure 4.4. Note that the draft 2001 Guide predictions are
presented with and without the use of an asphalt fatigue shift factor of five. The changes to the
design method had most effect on the allowable loading of thin asphalt-surfaced granular
pavements and the least effect on full-depth asphalt pavements.
Austroads 2008
— 3.21 —
50 mm asphalt on unbound granular 100 mm asphalt on unbound granular

subgrade CBR=5%, asphalt modulus 3000 MPa subgrade CBR=5% asphalt modulus 3000 MPa
550 500
500
450
450
400
Granular thickness (mm)
400

350 350
300
300
250
250
200
150 200
100
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 150
Allowable loading (ESAs) 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07
Allowable loading (ESAs)
2001 Guide w/o SF 2001 Guide with SF=5 1987 Guide
150 mm asphalt on unbound granular 200 mm asphalt on granular

subgrade CBR=5%, asphalt modulus 3000 MPa subgrade CBR=5%, asphalt modulus 3000 MPa
450
600
400
500 350
300
400
250
300 200
150
200
100
50
100
0
1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08
0 Allowable loading (ESAs)
1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 2001 Guide w/o SF 2001 Guide with SF=5 1987 Guide
Allowable loading (ESAs)
Figure 4.4: Comparison of allowable loadings in terms of asphalt fatigue of 1987 Guide
and draft 2001 Guide with and without use of a shift factor
After considering these changes, the proposed changes to the reliability procedures and the
comparison of observed and predicted performance (Jameson 1999), the draft 2001 Guide RG
decided to adopt a shift factor of five to the Shell laboratory fatigue relationship as follows:
⎡ 6918(0.856 VB + 1.08) ⎤
5 21
N = 5⎢ 0.36 ⎥
⎢⎣ S mix με ⎥⎦
Where N = allowable number of repetitions of the load
με = tensile strain produced by the load (microstrain)
VB = percentage by volume of bitumen in the asphalt (%)
Smix = asphalt mix stiffness (modulus) (MPa).
Eqn (21) was provided in the draft 2001 Guide.
The 2004 Guide RG reviewed comments received on the draft 2001 Guide. Concern was
expressed about the significant reductions in thickness of thick (>150 mm) asphalt surfaced
pavements resulting from the draft 2001 Guide design process. Hence the 2004 RG reconsidered
the shift factor of five and the use of RTM to enable design to a desired project reliability.
Austroads 2008
— 3.22 —
The 2004 Guide RG considered that the use of the Shell laboratory fatigue relationship with a shift
factor of one resulted on average in a 95% probability of a project outlasting the design traffic. This
average reliability was largely based on the performance of dense-graded hot mix asphalt which
has been widely used in Australia. To provide adjustment factors to enable design to other
reliabilities, the variability of performance between projects was required. The RTM values given in
Jameson and Moffatt (2001) for full depth asphalt pavements are given in Table 4.3. For this
pavement type the dominant distress mode is asphalt fatigue. These RTM are based on the
assumption that the average reliability of the design process is 85%.
Table 4.3: Reliability traffic multipliers for full depth asphalt pavements
Desired project reliability
80% 85% 90% 95% 97.5%
RTMs: average reliability of design process 85% 0.81 1.0 1.3 2.0 3.0
(Jameson & Moffatt 2001)
Equivalent RTMs for an average reliability of design 0.405 0.5 0.65 1.0 1.5
process 95%
The RTMs reported by Jameson and Moffatt (2001) assume that the average reliability of the
design process is 85% (RTM=1 for a desired project reliability of 85%). As stated above, the 2004
Guide RG considered the average reliability of the design process was 95% rather than 85%.
Consequently, Table 4.3 shows the adjusted RTMs for an average reliability of 95% obtained by
dividing the RTMs based on an average reliability of 85% by a factor of 2.
Rather than provide for project reliability by adjusting the design traffic using these RTM values,
the 2004 Guide RG simplified the process by providing factors to the allowable loading predicted
using the asphalt fatigue relationship. These reliability factors are the inverse of the RTM values
for an average reliability of 95% given in Table 4.3. Hence the following asphalt fatigue
relationship was adopted in the 2004 Guide:
⎡ 6918(0.856 VB + 1.08) ⎤
5 22
N = RF ⎢ 0.36 ⎥
⎣⎢ S mix μe ⎦⎥
με = tensile strain produced by the load (microstrain)
VB = percentage by volume of bitumen in the asphalt (%)
Smix = asphalt mix stiffness (modulus) (MPa)
RF = reliability factor for asphalt fatigue (Table 4.4).
Table 4.4: 2004 Guide suggested reliability factors (RF) for asphalt fatigue
Desired Project Reliability

80% 85% 90% 95% 97.5%
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.67
Note that these reliability factors are transfer functions that relate a mean laboratory fatigue life
(Shell 1978) to the in-service fatigue life predicted using this Guide at a desired project reliability.
In effect they comprise two components:
Austroads 2008
— 3.23 —
a shift factor relating mean laboratory fatigue life to a mean in-service fatigue life, taking
account of the differences between the laboratory test conditions and the conditions applying
to the in-service pavement
a reliability factor relating mean in-service fatigue life to the in-service life predicted using this
Guide at a desired project reliability, taking into account those factors (e.g. construction
variability, environment, traffic loading).
Austroads 2008
— 3.24 —
5 DESIGN TRAFFIC
5.1 Units of Loading
The design procedures for flexible pavements are based on assessing the response under a
Standard Axle load, which is defined in the 2004 Guide as a single axle with two sets of dual
wheels that carries a load of 80 kN.
The loads on other axle groups that cause the same damage as a Standard Axle are given in
Table 5.1. Potter (1997) (refer Chapter 1 of this report ) describes the origin of thes axle loads,
except for quad axle loading, the origins of which are discussed by Vuong and Jameson (2003).
Table 5.1: Axle group loads which cause equal damage as a standard axle
Axle Configuration Load (kN)
Single axle single wheels 53
Single axle dual wheels 80
Tandem axle single wheels 90
Tandem axle dual wheels 135
Triaxle 181
Quad axle 221
If axle group loads are other than those in Table 5.1, then the damage caused is expressed as the
number of Standard Axles which produce the same damage and is calculated as follows:
EXP
⎡ Load on axle group ⎤ 23
No. of standard axles of damage = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ Appropriat e load from Table 5. 1⎦
where the exponent EXP varies with the distress type. During the AASHO Road Test, it was
concluded that damage to the test pavements was related to the 4th power of the axle load. Hence
a value of 4 is commonly adopted for the exponent, in this case the number of Standard Axles of
damage is termed the number of Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA).
The empirical thickness design chart (Figure 8.4) for thin bituminous-surfaced unbound granular
pavements presents the allowable loading in terms of equivalent standard axles (ESA). Hence to
use this design chart, the design traffic loading needs to be calculated in terms of ESA.
In the Austroads mechanistic design procedures, the allowable loading varies with strain level as
shown in Table 5.2.
In the Austroads Guide, the exponent of strain dependency for each distress mode is adopted as
the exponent of load dependency in eqn (23). This is based on the simplifying assumption that all
materials are linear elastic, even though it is acknowledged that the moduli of granular and
subgrade materials are stress-dependent.
Austroads 2008
— 3.25 —
Table 5.2: Distress mode strain dependency

Distress mode Dependence on strain
Asphalt fatigue (Section 4.3.3) 5
⎛ k ⎞
N = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ με ⎠
Rutting of unbound granular materials and subgrade 7
⎛ k ⎞
(Section 4.3.1) N = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ με ⎠
Cemented materials fatigue (Section 4.3.2) 12
⎛ k ⎞
N = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ με ⎠
Consequently, for the mechanistic design of flexible pavements, design traffic is expressed in
terms of the following Standard Axles of loading rather than ESA (4th power) of loading:
Using a load damage exponent of 5, the number of Standard Axles that produce the same
cumulative damage as the design traffic in terms of asphalt fatigue (NSA) is calculated.
cumulative damage as the design traffic in terms of rutting of granular materials and
subgrade is calculated (NSS).
cumulative damage as the design traffic in terms of cemented material fatigue (NSC) is
calculated.
In the 1987 Guide, the most common practice of calculating these Standard Axles (see Appendix E
of the 1987 Guide) was as follows:
First, the cumulative number of heavy vehicles over the design period was calculated.
Based on Table E5, or other relevant data, the number ESA of loading per heavy vehicle and
hence the cumulative ESA of loading (NE) were calculated.
The Standard Axles of loading per ESA for each distress type were then calculated based on
the following presumptive values or other relevant information:
NSA = 1.1 NE
NSS = 1.1 NE
NSC = 20 NE
Using these factors, the number of Standard Axles of loading for each distress type were
calculated.
In 1992 Guide, the cumulative number of heavy vehicles per axle group (HVAGs) was only
calculated for rigid pavements. For the 2004 Guide, the design traffic calculation were made more
consistent across all pavement types by the requirement to the cumulative number of HVAGs for
all pavements.
To calculate Standard Axles of loading from the cumulative HVAGs of loading, the factors are
calculated for the average number of Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA) of damage per HVAG and
the Standard Axle Repetitions (SAR) per ESA for each distress type based on the traffic load
distribution.
Austroads 2008
— 3.26 —
In the absence of traffic load distribution data, the presumptive values of ESA/HVAGs and
SAR/ESA given in Table 5.3 are based on the presumptive traffic load distributions discussed in
Section 5.2.
Table 5.3: Characteristics of presumptive traffic load distributions (TLDs)

for urban and rural roads
Pavement type Damage type Damage index Presumptive Presumptive
rural TLD urban TLD
Granular pavements with thin Overall damage ESA/HVAG 0.9 0.7
bituminous surfacings, designed 2.5 1.8
using Figure 8.4 ESA/HV
Pavement containing one or Fatigue of asphalt SARa/ESA 1.1 1.1
more bound layers, Rutting and shape loss SARs/ESA 1.6 1.6
mechanistically designed
Fatigue of cemented materials SARc/ESA 12 12
In the development of the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2 Pavement Structural Design in
2007, the Austroads Pavement Structures Reference Group noted that the equivalent loads given
in Table 5.1, were derived from measured maximum deflections on sprayed seal granular
pavements and there are doubts about the applicablity of these equivalent loads for fatigue of
bound materials. The Reference Group concluded that further research is required to confine or
refine the Table 5.1 equivalent loads for all distress modes.
5.2 Traffic Load Distributions

In the early to mid-1980s when Chapter 7 of the 1987 Guide was written there was limited axle
load data. Given the increased amount of weigh-in-motion (WIM) data now available, and the
increase in axle loads over the last 15-20 years, it was considered essential that this element of the
design procedure be revised for the 2004 Guide.
Koniditsiotis (1996, 1997 and 1998) collated WIM data collected by state road authorities at over
100 sites and measured WIM data on 12 lightly-trafficked roads in the Melbourne metropolitan
area.
After validation and quality assurance of the traffic load data, Koniditsiotis (1998) used clustering
analysis to group similar traffic load distributions (TLDs). Based on this analysis, 25 presumptive
TLDs were developed, comprising:
nine TLDs for urban roads, with presumptive TLDs varying with type of heavy vehicle use
(e.g. general freight, industrial, etc.) and Austroads Road Functional Class 6, 7 and 8
16 TLDs for rural roads, with presumptive TLD varying with type of heavy vehicle use (eg
general freight, Industrial, etc) and Austroads Road Functional Class 1, 2 and 3.
A Working Group lead by David Dash (RTA, NSW) reviewed these 25 TLDs and considered the
data could be further reduced to 12 presumptive TLDs. Based on this analysis, the text of Chapter
7 was prepared by the Working Group and discussed at the June 2000 meeting of the 2001 Guide
RG.
In this draft of the Guide, Table 7.5 provided presumptive traffic load distribution (TLDs) for urban
roads and Table 7.6 provided presumptive traffic load distribution (TLDs) for rural roads. Again,
the appropriate TLD depended on the type of heavy traffic use and the Austroads Road Functional
Class.
Austroads 2008
— 3.27 —
The draft 2001 Guide RG requested that a review be undertaken of the data, as some of the
values in the Tables appeared to be counter-intuitive.
Following the June 2000 RG meeting, the SRAs were asked to confirm the Road Functional
Classes assumed in the analysis undertaken to derive Tables 7.5 and 7.6. The SRAs were
forwarded the June 2000 draft Appendix 7.2, which summarised the data for 119 weigh-in-motion
sites through Australia. This review resulted in the following changes to Appendix 7.2:
based on SRA advice, five of the South Australian sites, two of the Victorian sites and one of
the Western Australian sites were deleted due to concerns about the validity of the data; and
the Road Functional Class of 32 of the remaining 111 sites was changed.
Due to these significant changes to Road Functional Class, it was apparent that new presumptive
TLDs would need to be developed from the WIM data reported by Koniditsiotis (1996). Given the
limited resources available for this additional development work, the data was analysed to only
assess whether presumptive TLDs for each Road Functional Class were appropriate, rather than
repeat the more detailed clustering analysis previously undertaken by Koniditsiotis (1998).
Based on this analysis (see Appendix J), the 2004 Guide RG adopted the presumptive TLDs.
In addition to these presumptive TLDs, Appendix 7.2 of the Guide lists the TLDs measured at over
100 sites throughout Australia. Designers may select a TLD from this database.
Austroads 2008
— 3.28 —
6 PROJECT RELIABILITY
6.1 Definition
An integral part of the pavement design process is an assessment by the designer of how well the
outcome of the design – the constructed pavement – will perform. No pavement design process
can ever guarantee with certainty that a subsequently constructed pavement will perform to design
expectations. The reasons for this are as follows:
No design process perfectly models how a specific pavement will perform in a controlled
environment with a specified traffic loading, let alone in its allotted environment when
subjected to its actual traffic.
The design values chosen for material properties are, at best, gross simplifications of the
complex and variable properties of pavement and subgrade materials.
No construction process can produce a pavement in complete conformance with a design
configuration, both in terms of layer thicknesses and (simplistic) material properties.
Because of this lack of certainty, an appropriate measure of the anticipated performance of the
(yet-to-be-constructed) pavement is its Project Reliability which is defined as follows:
The Project Reliability is the probability that the pavement when constructed to the
chosen design will outlast its Design Traffic before major rehabilitation is required. In
regard to these reliability procedures, a project is defined as a portion from a uniformly
designed and (nominally) uniformly constructed road pavement which is subsequently
rehabilitated as an entity.
A more detailed definition and description of project reliability is contained in Potter et al. (1996).
6.2 Procedures in 1992 the Guide

Section 7.9 of the 1987 Guide presented a method for modifying the design traffic to improve the
reliability of the design. For flexible pavements, the number of load repetitions was increased
above the number actually anticipated over the design period.
During the development of the revised design procedures for rigid pavements in the early 1990s
concern was expressed regarding the different methods used to allow for project reliability in rigid
pavement and flexible pavement design.
The existing flexible pavement procedures contained in the 1987 Guide allow for variability by
increasing the number of load repetitions by a factor of up to 4. The existing rigid pavement design
procedures, on the other hand, allow for variability by using ‘load safety factors’ (LSF) (e.g. 1.0, 1.1
and 1.2), to adjust the axle loads used in the design. Neither of these procedures enables
pavements to be designed to a selected level of reliability.
6.3 Development of Procedures in the Draft 2001 Guide

In 1996 Austroads commissioned ARRB TR to develop reliability guidelines that were consistent
across all new pavement types. An Austroads Working Group was established to guide and assist
in this task.
Reports by Jameson and Moffatt (2001), Moffatt et al. (1998) and Potter et al. (1996) detail the
development of these reliability guidelines and the effect of the adoption of these guidelines on
generic pavement designs.
Austroads 2008
— 3.29 —
The method used to derive these procedures requires knowledge of: (i) the variability between
road projects of input parameters to the design processes, and (ii) the average reliability of projects
designed using the current design processes and constructed and maintained to current state road
authority standards and specifications.
As discussed by Jameson and Moffatt (2001), given the paucity of pavement performance data,
there was considerable difficulty in reaching agreement on these average reliability levels. Table
6.1 lists the average reliabilities that were used in the development of the draft 2001 Guide
reliability procedures.
Table 6.1: Average project reliabilities of outlasting

design traffic for flexible pavements (draft 2001 Guide)
Pavement type Reliability (%) of the project
withstanding its design traffic
Thin bituminous seal on granular material 90
Thin bituminous seal on granular material on cemented material 90
Thin bituminous seal on cemented material 80
Full depth asphalt 85
Asphalt on granular material 85
Asphalt on granular material on cemented material 85
Asphalt (< 150 mm) on cemented material 85
Asphalt (≥ 150 mm) on cemented material 85
Asphalt (≥ 150 mm) on modified material1 85
1
Material modified with a quantity and type of binder that ensures the material
will perform as a granular material.
For a given project the desired project reliability may differ from the average values shown in Table
6.1. To design a project to a reliability level other than the values given in Table 6.1 the distribution
of allowable loadings of projects identically designed and (nominally) identically constructed was
required. These distributions were generated using Monte Carlo simulations and estimations of
the variability between road projects of input parameters to the design processes. For each
pavement type, these distributions were used to estimate how to adjust the design traffic using a
Traffic Multiplier to design to a project reliability other than the values given in Table 6.1 (Jameson
and Moffatt 2001).
In the draft 2001 Guide procedures for the design of new flexible pavements, project reliability was
allowed for by altering the number of Standard Axle loads by so-called Reliability Traffic Multipliers.
Reliability Traffic Multipliers (RTM) were estimated for a range of flexible pavement types to enable
pavements to be designed to project reliabilities of 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% and 97.5%. RTMs
were developed both for the reliability of outlasting the design traffic expected during the design
period and of outlasting the design period. Table 6.2 shows the RTMs for outlasting the design
traffic, while Table 6.3 shows the RTMs for outlasting the design period. Note that the RTMs are
greater for outlasting the design period than the design traffic as the former includes the additional
uncertainty associated with estimating the design traffic during the design period. As the values in
Table 6.2 and Table 6.3 were similar, the draft 2001 Guide RG decided to simply adopt the Design
Traffic RTM (Table 6.2) in the 2001 draft Guide.
Austroads 2008
— 3.30 —
Table 6.2: Traffic multipliers to outlast the design traffic

Pavement type Desired project reliability
75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 97.5%
Thin bituminous seal on less than 300 mm granular material 0.17 0.27 0.49 1.0 2.9 7.4
Thin bituminous seal on 300 mm or more granular material 0.27 0.38 0.58 1.0 2.3 4.4
Thin bituminous seal on granular material on cemented 0.33 0.44 0.62 1.0 2.1 3.7
material
Thin bituminous seal on cemented material 0.62 1.0 1.8 3.9 14 42
Full depth asphalt 0.68 0.81 1.0 1.3 2.0 3.0
Asphalt on granular material 0.70 0.82 1.0 1.3 1.9 2.7
Asphalt on granular material on cemented material 0.68 0.81 1.0 1.3 2.0 3.1
Asphalt (<150 mm) on cemented material 0.52 0.70 1.0 1.6 3.3 6.5
Asphalt (>=150 mm) on cemented material 0.65 0.79 1.0 1.4 2.3 4.3
Asphalt (>=150 mm) on modified1 material 0.71 0.83 1.0 1.3 1.9 2.6
1. Material modified with a quantity and type of binder that ensures the layer will not fail by fatigue cracking.
Table 6.3: Traffic multipliers to outlast the design period

Pavement type Desired project reliability
75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 97.5%
Thin bituminous seal on less than 300 mm granular material 0.18 0.28 0.50 1.0 3.1 8.2
Thin bituminous seal on 300 mm or more granular material 0.28 0.40 0.62 1.1 2.5 4.8
Thin bituminous seal on granular material on cemented 0.34 0.47 0.67 1.1 2.2 4.1
material
Thin bituminous seal on cemented material 0.64 1.03 1.9 4.1 15 44
Full depth asphalt 0.74 0.89 1.1 1.5 2.4 3.6
Asphalt on granular material 0.78 0.92 1.1 1.5 2.3 3.3
Asphalt on granular material on cemented material 0.74 0.90 1.1 1.5 2.4 3.7
Asphalt (<150 mm) on cemented material 0.54 0.74 1.1 1.7 3.6 7.3
Asphalt (>=150 mm) on cemented material 0.69 0.86 1.1 1.5 2.6 4.3
Asphalt (>=150 mm) on modified1 material 0.78 0.92 1.1 1.5 2.2 3.3
1. Material modified with a quantity and type of binder that ensures the layer will not fail by fatigue cracking.
6.4 Development of Procedures in the 2004 Guide

The 2004 Guide RG viewed comments on the draft 2001 Guide reliability procedures. The following
issues were raised:
Given the lack of data about the average reliabilities of the design procedures, it was
considered that the provision of RTMs for nine separate pavements was unwarranted. In
addition, for some pavement types there was a wide scatter of RTMs.
There was concern that the average reliabilities may be misinterpreted as reflecting the
intrinsic reliability of pavement types themselves rather than the reliabilities of the design
processes for pavement types.
Austroads 2008
— 3.31 —
There was concern that RTM values provided for unbound granular pavements with thin
bituminous surfacings would result in changes in the thickness of these pavements. These
RTMs were based on the assumption that the average reliability of pavements designed
using the empirical thickness design charts (Figure 8.4) was 90%. As the performance of
pavements designed with the empirical chart has been adequate across a wide range of
traffic loadings it was concluded that Figure 8.4 already included appropriate levels of
reliability across a range of traffic loadings and that this was more appropriate than adopting
an average reliability of 90%.
The 2004 Guide RG decided that the process to enable design to a desired project reliability
should be simplified. The approach adopted was to adjust the predicted allowable loading for each
distress mode rather than applying the RTM to change the design traffic loadings.
Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of this report explain how Reliability Factors were developed to enable
design to a desired project reliability in terms of cemented materials fatigue and asphalt fatigue
respectively. As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the subgrade strain relationship was derived by back-
analysis of the empirical chart for unbound granular pavements (Figure 8.4). The RG considered
this chart to implicitly include appropriate levels of reliability across a range of traffic loadings. As
such, there was no need to provide Reliability Factors for use with the subgrade strain criterion.
Note that the Reliability Factors provided in the 2004 Guide are applicable to the design processes
in the Guide and to current SRA construction and maintenance specifications. In the event of
changes to these procedures these factors should be reviewed.
As the design of rigid pavements is more sensitive to load magnitude rather than to axle load,
project reliability is allowed for by altering the project axle load distribution using Load Safety
Factors (LSF). LSF were estimated for reliability of outlasting both the design traffic and the design
period.
Austroads 2008
— 3.32 —
7 SUMMARY
This report has recorded the work undertaken to revise the guidelines for the design of flexible
pavements in Pavement Design – A Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavements for
publication in 2004 and subsequently in 2008 as Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2 Pavement
Structural Design. The Guide was initially published by the National Association of Australian
State Road Authorities (NAASRA) in 1987 and subsequently revised and re-issued by Austroads in
1992.
The work undertaken to develop the previous editions of the Guide plus its predecessor, the
Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design (NAASRA 1979), has been well-documented by
Potter (refer to Chapter 1 of this report ).
The major changes to the Austroads guidelines for the design of flexible pavements are:
changes to the pavement response model, including the use of a full Standard Axle loading
rather than a half Standard Axle loading to calculate critical strains
improved procedures for estimating the design moduli of selected subgrade materials and
unbound granular materials
improved methods of estimating asphalt design moduli, including the derivation of design
moduli from measured moduli obtained using the indirect tensile test
revision of the subgrade strain criterion for application with the full Standard Axle load
procedures to enable design be to be conducted to a desired reliability of the constructed
pavement outlasting the design traffic
modification to the cemented materials fatigue and asphalt fatigue relationships to include
variable factors to enable design to a desired project reliability
significant revision to the procedures used to calculate the design traffic, including a
database of traffic load distributions obtained at over 100 WIM sites throughout Australia.
Austroads 2008
— 3.33 —
8 REFERENCES
Alderson, AJ 1999, ‘Summary of Vicroads research into cement-treated materials’, contract report RC 90216,
ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Angell, D 1988, Technical basis for the pavement design guide, report RP 1265, Pavements Branch,
Department of Main Roads, Queensland.
Austroads 1992, Pavement design – a guide to the structural design of road pavements, Austroads, Sydney.
Austroads 1997, Revision note for pavement design – a guide to the structural design of road pavements,
APRG, November.
Austroads 2004, Pavement design – a guide to the structural design of road pavements, .
AP-G17/04, Austroads, Sydney.
Austroads (in press), ‘Guide to pavement technology: part 2: pavement structural design’, Austroads,
Sydney.
Austroads Pavement Research Group 1996, ‘Pavement materials: asphalt: draft revision of the Austroads
pavement design guide’, APRG document 96/03.
Brown, SF 1973, ‘Determination of Young’s modulus for bituminous materials in pavement design’, Highway
Research Record, 431, pp. 38-49.
Butcher, M, van Loon, H 2003 ‘A review of the determination of asphalt modulus for pavement design’,
AAPA international flexible pavements conference, 12th, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Chowdhury, F & Rallings, RA 1994, ‘A survey of truck tyre pressures in Tasmania’, Road and Transport
Research vol.3, no.3, pp.80-9.
Jameson, GW 1995, ‘Response of cementitious pavement materials to repeated loadings’, contract report
RI 949, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Jameson, GW 1996, Origins of Austroads design procedures for granular pavements, research report ARR
no. 292, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Jameson, GW 1999, An assessment of the need to incorporate shift factors for predicting the fatigue life of
asphalt, APRG Document 99/43, Austroads Pavement Research Group December.
Jameson, GW, Dash, DM, Tharan, Y & Vertessy, NJ 1995, The performance of deep-lift in-situ pavement
recycling under accelerated loading: the Cooma ALF Trial 1994, APRG report no. 11, Austroads
Pavement Research Group.
Jameson, GW & Hopman, PC 2000, ‘Development of relationships between laboratory loading rate and
traffic speed’, APRG document 00/16, Austroads Pavement Research Group, June.
Jameson, GW & Moffatt, MA 2001, ‘Development of Austroads pavement design reliability guidelines’,.
APRG Document 00/17, Australian Pavement Research Group, June.
Jameson, GW, Sharp, KG & Yeo, R 1992, Cement-treated crushed rock pavement fatigue under
accelerated loading: the Mulgrave (Victoria) ALF trial, 1989/1991 research report ARR no. 229
Austroads 2008
— 3.34 —
Kenis, WJ, Sherwood, JA & McMahon, TF 1981, ‘Verification and application of the VESYS structural
subsystem’, Proceedings 5th international conference on structural design of asphalt pavements, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Koniditsiotis, C 1996, ‘Update of traffic design chapter in the austroads pavement design guide – status
report’, working document WD TI96/024, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Koniditsiotis, C 1997, ‘Update of Austroads pavement design guide – traffic design chapter. report on
consultation with stakeholders and outline (draft) of proposed traffic design chapter’, working
document WD R97/019, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Koniditsiotis, C 1998, ‘Update of the Austroads pavement design guide – traffic design chapter. final draft of
new traffic design chapter’, working document WD R98/030, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont
South, Vic.
Moffatt, MA & Jameson, GW 1997, ‘Development of a subgrade strain criterion for full width standard axle
loading’, working document WD-R97/068, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Moffatt, MA & Jameson, GW 1998, ‘Granular materials moduli under asphalt and cemented material’,
working document WD-R98/008, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Moffatt, MA & Jameson, GW 1998, ‘Characterisation of granular material and development of a subgrade
strain criterion’, working document WD-R98/005, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Moffatt, MA & Yeo, R 1998, ‘Relationships between unconfined compressive strength and flexural modulus
for cemented materials’, working document WD-R98/024, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South,
Vic.
Moffatt, MA & Jameson, GW, Cropley, S & Ramsey, E 1998, ‘Traffic multipliers for incorporating design
reliability into the Austroads pavement design guide’, working document WD-R98/026, ARRB
NAASRA 1979, Interim guide to pavement thickness design, National Association of Australian State Road
Authorities (NAASRA), Sydney.
NAASRA 1987, Pavement design – a guide to the structural design of road pavements, National Association
of Australian State Road Authorities, Sydney.
Nunn, ME 1996. The characteristion of bituminous macadams by indirect tensile stiffness modulus, TLR
report 160, Crowthorne, UK.
Nunn, M E, Bowskill, G 1992, ‘Towards a performance specification’, Proceedings of isap 7th international
conference on the design of flexible pavements, Notthingham, England.
Potter, DW 1997, ‘Appropriate laboratory fatigue testing of asphalt for Australia and its role in australian
pavement design’, working document R97/021, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Potter, DW, Jameson, GW, Makarov, A, Moffatt, MA & Cropley, SM 1996, A basis for incorporating reliability
in the Austroads pavement design procedures, working document TI96/014, ARRB Transport
Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Pronk A.C, Erkens SMGJ (2002). ‘A note on fatigue bending testing using haversine loading’. Jnl Road
Materials and Pavement Design, Vol.3, No. 1.
Austroads 2008
— 3.35 —
Rallings, RA 1997, APRG workshop on structural behaviour of unbound granular pavements, report APRG
97/03, Austroads Pavement Research Group.
Shell International Petroleum 1978, Shell pavement design manual: asphalt pavement and overlays for road
traffic, Shell, London, United Kingdom
Vuong, BT 1994, ‘Prediction versus performance of a granular pavement tested with the accelerated loading
facility (ALF)’, Proceedings of the Symposium on Prediction Versus Performance in Geotechnical
Engineering, 1992, Bangkok, Thailand , A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Vuong, BT, Jameson, G.W. (2003) ‘Equivalent load for a quad axle Proc’, 21st ARRB Conference Cairnes,
Australia.
Wardle, LJ 1977, Program CIRCLY user’s manual, CSIRO Division of Applied Geomechanics.
Yandell, WO 1981, ‘Applications of the mechano-lattice analysis in materials engineering’, Proceedings 2nd
Australian conference on engineering materials, Sydney, pp. 401-19.
Yeo, REY 1997, ‘Basis for revision of modulus correlations for cemented materials’, working document WD-
R97/072, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Youdale, GP 1978, Repeated load triaxial tests on granular pavement materials, materials research
laboratory test, report no. RS21 PTII, DMR.
Youdale, GP 1983, ‘Investigation of the variation of stiffness with depth of a granular layer under variable
thickness of asphaltic concrete: report to working group’, July and October.
Youdale, GP 1984a, ‘Investigation of the effects of and the interaction between the stress dependency of
moduli and the anisotropy of granular pavement materials on the results of pavement analysis using
CIRCLY: report to working group’, April.
Youdale, GP 1984b, ‘Investigation of the variation of stiffness with depth of a granular layer over a bound
subbase layer: reports to working group’, March.
Youdale, GP 1984c, ‘Review of limiting subgrade strain criterion: submission to NAASRA working group on
Youdale, GP 1984d, ‘The design of pavements surfaced with asphalt for particular temperature
environments’, ARRB Conference, 12th, Hobart, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South,
Vic, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 78-88.
Road Research Laboratory 1952, Soil Mechanics for Road Engineers, HMSO, London.
Road Research Laboratory 1955, Construction of housing-estate roads using granular base and subbase
materials, road note 20, HMSO, London.
Austroads 2008
— 3.36 —
APPENDIX A ORIGINS OF UNBOUND GRANULAR

THICKNESS CHART
This excerpt is presented in Appendix A of Chapter 1 of this report and is not repeated here.
Austroads 2008
— 3.37 —
APPENDIX B CHARACTERISATION OF GRANULAR

MATERIALS AND DEVELOPMENT OF A
SUBGRADE STRAIN CRITERION
The following text was first published as an internal ARRB Transport Research Working Document
WD- R98/005 by M. Moffatt and G. Jameson, March 1998.
B.1 Introduction
Moffatt and Jameson (1997) recommend the adoption of full width Standard Axle modelling in
CIRCLY for the design of new pavements in the next edition of the Austroads Pavement Design
Guide (APDG) (Austroads 1992). At the inaugural meeting of the Austroads Pavement Design
Guide Reference Group (APDGRG), held in January 1998, it was decided to adopt this
recommendation, and use the geometry shown here in Figure B. 1. Moffatt and Jameson describe
the process whereby a new relationship between allowable Standard Axle repetitions and
maximum compressive strain at the top of the subgrade was developed, and also recommends a
new relationship be developed by such a process using full width Standard Axle modelling.
330 mm 330 mm
1800 mm
Figure B. 1: Geometry of a full Standard Axle
It was also decided at the APDGRG meeting that the current ‘rules’ in the Design Guide (Section
8.2.2) for subdividing granular materials could be inappropriately used by less experienced
designers. The current ‘rules’ allow the maximum modulus of a granular material to be developed
regardless of the thickness of the granular layer or the strength of the subgrade. The meeting
decided that the subdividing process be altered to prevent such practices. As a result of adopting
a new procedure for sublayering granular materials the process used to develop a revised
subgrade strain performance relationship needed to be repeated.
This report recommends a revised procedure for the sublayering of granular materials and also
proposes a revised subgrade strain performance relationship.
Austroads 2008
— 3.38 —
B.2 Unbound Granular Materials Characterisation

B.2.1 Background
Jameson and Moffatt (1998) conducted a review of the current ‘rules’ for sublayering granular
materials, and also investigated at procedures used by Main Roads Queensland (Angell 1988), the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1989) and the Shell Pavement Design Manual
(1978). Subsequent to this report an alternative procedure was suggested (in two slightly different
forms) by David Potter. Potter’s procedure is reproduced here in Attachment B1, as it is not
published elsewhere.
Members of the APDGRG were invited to review the alternative procedures and reach a decision
as to which procedure should be adopted for use in the APDG. The general consensus was to
adopt Potter’s modified approach (whereby granular material is always divided into 5 equi-thick
layers). It was also thought that the use of a value of 125 in Step 3 of this procedure was
appropriate. Some concerns were raised as to whether numerical instability in CIRCLY may result
from the small sublayer thicknesses used for thin granular layers. A quick exercise, discussed
below, confirms that excessive numerical instability does not occur.
The following section contains the recommended procedure for sublayering granular material, and
written so as to form a direct replacement for the current Section 8.2.2 of the APDG.
B.2.2 Proposed Procedure for Elastic Characterisation of Granular Materials

The moduli of granular materials are dependent not only on the intrinsic characteristics of these
materials, but also on the stress level at which they operate and the stiffness of underlying layers.
As a result, the moduli of pavement materials subjected to vertical loading will decrease with depth
to an extent influenced by the stiffness of the subgrade.
Iterative analyses with a finite element model would permit allowance to be taken of the stress
dependent nature of the modulus of granular material, but would not make allowance for the
degree of support provided by underlying layers. In addition, as such models are not readily
available to pavement designers, the procedure in this Guide utilises the elastic model CIRCLY
with the granular layers partitioned into several sublayers, with each assigned a modulus value
according to the following:
For granular materials placed directly on a stiff cemented subbase, no sublayering is
required. The modulus is determined using the procedures which are discussed in Chapter 6
of the 1992 Guide.
For granular materials placed directly on the subgrade, sublayering is required and should be
conducted as follows:
— Divide the granular materials into 5 equi-thick sublayers.
— The vertical modulus of the top sublayer is the minimum of the value indicated in
Table 6.6 and that determined using:
E V top of base = E V subgrade × 2 (total granular material thickness 125 )
— The ratio of moduli of adjacent sublayers is given by:

1
⎡ E V top of base ⎤ 5
R=⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ E V subgrade ⎥⎦
Austroads 2008
— 3.39 —
— The modulus of each layer may then be calculated from the modulus of the adjacent
underlying layer, beginning with the subgrade whose modulus is known.
— For all granular materials, the other stiffness parameters required for each sublayer
may be calculated from the following relationships:
Eh = 0.5 Ev
Fv = Ev / (1 + νv)
B.2.3 Check for Numerical Instability in CIRCLY for Low Sublayer Thicknesses
As noted above, some concerns were raised when deciding upon the most appropriate sublayering
procedure as to whether use of very thin (around 20 mm) sublayers would lead to numerical
instability in CIRCLY. The recommended procedure described above can produce thin sublayers
for low total material thicknesses.
After discussions with Leigh Wardle of Mincad Systems it was felt that a suitable means of
determining if any numerical instability had occurred for a specific analysis was to examine the
CIRCLY output file (*.CLO) and check for an asterisk (*) in the first column for each coordinate
analysed. The asterisk indicates CIRCLY has failed to converge on a solution.
A series of granular pavements with compositions shown in Table B. 1 were analysed (using
CIRCLY 3.0, update 56) using both Potter’s original suggested procedure and his modified
procedure as discussed in Section B.2.2.
Table B. 1: Granular material thicknesses and subgrade (vertical) moduli used in CIRCLY analysis
Granular Thicknesses (mm) 100 to 1000 in steps of 25
Subgrade CBR (%) 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30
This comparison did not show any significant difference in the number of times CIRCLY reported,
via the asterisk, that instability had occurred in determining a solution.
The results of these analyses also showed that the maximum compressive strain at the top of the
subgrade (which could occur anywhere along the full axle) did not significantly vary between each
of the Potter approaches. For pavement thicknesses greater than 225 mm there was no
difference, as both procedures use five sublayers for granular layers greater than or equal to
250 mm. For thicknesses of 225 mm or below, the differences between strains determined using
both Potter granular characterisations can be seen in Figure B. 2.
A second series of CIRCLY analyses, this time of pavement with a thin asphalt surfacing, was
conducted using both Potter’s original suggested procedure and his modified procedure. Table B.
2 shows the pavement compositions used for the analysis. Figure B. 3 shows that there is no
significant difference between the asphalt or subgrade critical strains determined using the two
Potter approaches.
Austroads 2008
— 3.40 —
Asphalt Modulus (MPa) 3000
Asphalt Thicknesses (mm) 25, 50, 75, 100
Granular Thicknesses (mm) 100, 150, 200
Subgrade CBR (%) 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30
Thickness of overlying asphalt (mm) Maximum possible modulus of top layer of
granular material
25 350
50 320
75 290
100 250
A comparison of the critical asphalt strains determined from the modified Potter approach and the
current (Austroads 1992) subdivision approach, shown in Figure B. 4, indicates that there is a
substantial difference in strain levels for thin asphalt layers. The current Austroads approach
yields considerably lower strain levels than the proposed modified Potter method. Figure B. 4
shows that as pavement thicknesses increase the agreement in strain levels between the two
methods improves. However, this difference in strain is most important when pavement life is
dominated by asphalt fatigue rather than subgrade (and pavement) rutting. Figure B.4 indicates
that the differences in strains are considerably less in these cases.
In all of the exercises relating to asphalt-surfaced pavements, it was found that CIRCLY did not
encounter any more numerical instability using the modified Potter approach than with the original
method proposed by Potter.
Austroads 2008
— 3.41 —
14000 14000
Subgrade CBR
13000 13000
Critical microstrain (using modified Potter subdivision approach)

12000 3 12000
Subgrade CBR
11000 11000
10000 10000 3
9000 4 9000
8000 8000
4
5
7000 7000
5
6000 6000
7
5000 5000
7
4000 4000
10
10
3000 3000
15
15
2000 20 2000 20
30 30
1000 1000
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Critical microstrain (using original Potter subdivision approach) Critical microstrain (using original Potter subdivision approach)
Total granular thickness = 100 mm Total granular thickness = 125 mm
14000 14000
13000 13000

2
12000 12000
11000 11000
2
10000 10000
Subgrade CBR
9000 9000
3
8000 8000 Subgrade CBR
7000 7000 3
4
6000 6000
5 4
5000 5000
5
4000 7 4000
7
3000 3000
10
10
2000 15 2000
20 15
20
30 30
1000 1000
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
14000 14000
13000 13000
12000 12000
11000 11000
10000 10000
9000 9000
2
8000 8000
2
7000 Subgrade CBR 7000
Subgrade CBR
6000 3 6000
5000 5000 3
4
4000 4000 4
5
5
3000 3000
7
7
2000 10 2000
10
15 15
20 20
1000 30 1000 30
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Figure B. 2: Comparison between alternative Potter granular material characterisations
Austroads 2008
— 3.42 —
1800
Critical subgrade microstrain (using modified Potter subdivision 9000
Critical subgrade microstrain (using modified Potter subdivision

1600 8000
1400 7000
1200 6000
1000 5000
approach)
approach)
800 4000
600 3000
400 2000
200 1000
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Critical subgrade microstrain (using original Potter subdivision approach) Critical subgrade microstrain (using original Potter subdivision approach)
Figure B. 3: Comparison between alternative Potter granular material characterisations

(asphalt surfaced pavements)
1800
25 100 02
Asphalt strain calculated using proposed granular subdivision method
asphalt thickness (mm)
1600 granular thickness (mm)

25 150 02
subgrade CBR (%)
XX YYY ZZ
1400
25 200 02 25 100 03
50 100 02
1200 50 150 02
25 150 03
25 100 04 50 200 02
50 100 03
(microstrain)
1000 50 150 03
25 200 03
25 150 04 25 100 05 50 100 04
50 200 03 75 100 02
50 150 04 75 150 02
50 02
75 200 100 05
800 25 04
150 05 75 100 03
25 200 5050
2001500405
75 150 03
25 100 07 75 50
200 75 100 04
03 07
100
50 200 05 75 150 04 100 100 02
50 75100
100150 02
02 05
600
25 200 05 75150 07
100
200150
75 04 05200
100 100 03
25 150 07 50 2007550 100
200
07 75 100
0510
100 150 03
0704
100 200
100 03
100
25 100 10 75100
150150
07 04
50 100 10004
150 200
10 100 05
75 100
200
75 150 05
07 10
100
25 200 07 100 200 05
5010075100
50
200 10 100
100
150
150 10 07
15
07
400 25 150 10 5075
100
75 100
100200
200
150 1010
07
100
15
75
5050
100 100
150
200 150
152015
15 10
25 100 15 100
7575
50
75
100
50 100
150
200
150
100
200 20
200
20
1520
15
2010
25 200 10 100 10075
100
100
200
150
200
100
150
200 1520
15
20
20
25
25150
10015
20
25
25 150
25200 20
2001520
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Asphalt strain calculated using current (Austroads, 1992) granular subdivision method (microstrain)
1800
Asphalt strain calculated using proposed granular subdivision method
1600
1400
1200
(microstrain)
1000 SG AS
SG AS
SG AS SG AS
SG AS SG AS
SG AS
SG AS
800
SGSG
ASAS SG AS
SG AS
ASAS AS
AS AS AS AS
SG AS AS
600 ASAS AS
AS
AS AS
AS
AS AS AS AS Indicates that subgrade
AS AS
AS
AS AS
AS AS
ASAS
strain criterion dominates when using
SG AS AS
AS
AS
ASAS AS current subdivion method, and that
400 AS
AS
ASAS asphalt strain dominates when using
ASAS
AS
AS Indicates that asphalt
AS
ASAS
AS
AS
AS proposed subdivision method
SG AS ASAS
AS strain criterion
AS
AS
SG AS dominates
AS
AS
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Asphalt strain calculated using current (Austroads, 1992) granular subdivision method (microstrain)
Figure B. 4: Comparison between citical asphalt strains produced using proposed granular material characterisation with
those produced using the current Austroads characterisation
Austroads 2008
— 3.43 —
B.3 Development of a Revised Subgrade Strain Performance

Relationship
The current equation, eqn (B.1), relating the number of allowable strain repetitions to the subgrade
strain level, was developed using a half Standard Axle model. Jameson (1996) describes how
Youdale (1984) derived the relationship from back-analyses of 25 pavements selected from the
NAASRA granular thickness chart (now Figure 8.4 of Austroads (1992)). For each pavement
CIRCLY was used to calculate the maximum compressive vertical strain at the top of the subgrade
between the dual wheels of a Standard Axle (550 kPa tyre pressure was assumed). A regression
of these strains versus the allowable traffic loading indicated from the design chart yielded
eqn (B.1).
7.14 B.1
⎡ 8511⎤
N=⎢ ⎥
⎣ με ⎦
Where N = allowable repetitions of a half Standard Axle
με = mum compressive strain at the top of the subgrade
(microstrain)
With the adoption of full width modelling of the Standard Axle, and an increased tyre pressure of
750 kPa (Austroads 1997), a new relationship needed to be determined. This was done and is
reported in Moffatt and Jameson (1997). As noted above, the Austroads Pavement Design Guide
Reference Group (APDGRG) decided that a modification of the procedure for sublayering granular
materials was needed. As such a modification would mean that the analysis described in Moffatt
and Jameson would need to be repeated, the APDGRG decided that a further revision of the
subgrade strain performance relationship should be conducted using the new sublayering
technique.
Using the sublayering procedure described in Section B.2.2, the following procedure was followed
in order to determine the revised relationship:
1. A series of CIRCLY Version 3 runs was conducted for unbound granular pavements, with a
range of granular thicknesses and subgrade CBRs. These runs were conducted using
modelling parameters considered to be applicable to the conditions relevant to the
pavements considered in the development of Figure 8.4 of Austroads (1992):
550 kPa tyre pressure
traffic distribution shown in Table 8.3 of Austroads (1992)
maximum vertical modulus of top sublayer of granular material, as per Table 6.6 of
Austroads (1992) – 350 MPa (value for standard compactive effort)
full width Standard Axle load geometry, as described in Section 1.
The pavement compositions modelled are shown in Table B.3.
Granular thicknesses (mm) 100 to 1000 in steps of 25
Subgrade CBR (%) 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30
2. The maximum compressive vertical strain at the surface of the subgrade of these
pavements was determined. These values are shown in Attachment B2.
Austroads 2008
— 3.44 —
3. The allowable loading (expressed in terms of ESAs) of the pavement configurations was
calculated using Figure 8.4 of Austroads (1992)10. If, for a specific CBR value, the
pavement composition was such that the granular thickness was less than the minimum
value shown in Figure 8.4, then the 90% confidence chart (Figure 13.8.2(B)) in APRG
(1998) was used to determine the allowable loading in ESAs. The allowable loadings in
ESAs were converted to allowable repetitions of a Standard Axle by multiplying by a factor
of 1.1 as per Section 7.5 of Austroads (1992) for the traffic distribution used. These
allowable loadings are also shown in Attachment B2.
4. A linear regression was fitted through the log-log data to predict the allowable number of
repetitions of load from the critical strain level. eqn (B.2) shows the equation determined.
log10(N) = 27.427 – 6.888 log10(με) B.2
Where N = allowable repetitions of a Standard Axle
με = maximum compressive strain at the top of the
subgrade (microstrain)
r2for regression = 0.96.
5. A linear regression was fitted through the log-log data to predict the critical strain level from
the number of allowable repetitions of load. eqn (B.3) shows the equation determined.
log10(με) = 3.9431 – 0.1392 log10( N ) B.3
r2for regression = 0.96.
6. As only one relationship should be used regardless of which parameter is being predicted,
the most appropriate relationship would be the following equation which bisects Eqns (B.2)
and (B.3).
log10(N) = 27.865 – 7.032 log10( με ) B.4
Rearranging Eqn (B.4) yields the more familiar equation form shown in eqn (B.5).
7.03 B.5
⎡ 9177 ⎤
N= ⎢ ⎥
⎣ με ⎦
7. In the above calculations the assumption was made that, based on the selected traffic
distribution (Table 8.3 of Austroads (1992)) and eqn (B.1) the factor to convert numbers of
ESA repetitions to a Standard Axles count was 1.1. Using eqn (B.5), which has a strain
exponent of 7.03 instead of 7.14 in eqn (B.1), and the procedure detailed in Moffatt (1997),
a revised figure of 1.14 was calculated. Repeating steps 4, 5 and 6, eqns (B.1) and (B.7)
were determined. The bisector of this equation is shown in eqn (B.8).
10
For ease of use the equational form of the Figure was used:
Thickness = [219 – 211(log(CBR)+58(log CBR)2]log (N/120)
Austroads 2008
— 3.45 —
log10(N) = 27.442 – 6.888 log10( με ) B.6

log10(με) = 3.945 – 0.1392 log10( N ) B.7
log10(N) = 27.881 – 7.032 log10( με ) B.8
Rearranging, and simplifying the denominator, yields eqn (B.9).

7.03 B.9
⎡ 9223 ⎤
N=⎢ ⎥
⎣ με ⎦
where = allowable repetitions of a full Standard Axle

subgrade (microstrain).
8. As the power of eqn (B.9) is not different to that of eqn (B.5) no subsequent change
occurred in the factor to convert between Standard Axle repetitions and ESA count.
9. Eqn (B.9) is, therefore, appropriate to use to determine the number of allowable repetitions
of a Standard Axle, before deformation failure of the subgrade and overlying material. In
order to ensure that a sense of (unjustified) precision is not conveyed by the relationship,
an analysis was undertaken to determine a relationship containing less significant figures
which matches well with that shown in eqn (B.9). It was found that eqn (B.10) matched
very well with eqn (B.9), and so it is proposed that eqn (B.10) be the form of the subgrade
strain relationship adopted in the APDG.
7 B.10
⎡ 9300 ⎤
N=⎢ ⎥
⎣ με ⎦

Figure B. 5 compares the allowable repetitions of a Standard Axle determined from subgrade strain
using the current relationship (eqn (B.1)) and that shown in eqn (B.10). It can be seen from this
Figure that there is a difference in the two relationships, particularly for high strains. The higher
strains correspond to thin pavements, where the effects of the changes in granular material
subdividing will be apparent. The difference between the two curves is, therefore, to be expected.
Austroads 2008
— 3.46 —
1.0E+09
1.0E+08
Number of allowable repetitions of a Standard Axle
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Maximum compressive vertical strain at top of subgrade (microstrain)
N = (8511/micostrain)^7.14 N = (9300/micostrain)^7
Figure B.5
Figure B. 5: Comparison of current (eqn b.1) with proposed (eqn b.10) relationship
between subgrade strain and allowable Standard Axle repetitions
B.4 Summary and Recommendations

The following recommendations are made in the light of the work discussed above:
that Austroads replace the existing procedure for sublayering granular material for CIRCLY
modelling by that shown here in Section B.2.2.
that Austroads adopt the following equation for determining the number of allowable
repetitions of a Standard Axle before deformation failure of the subgrade and overlying
material:
7 B.10
⎡ 9300 ⎤
N=⎢ ⎥
⎣ με ⎦

Austroads 2008
— 3.47 —
REFERENCES
Angell, DJ 1988, Technical basis for the pavement design manual, RP-1265, Main Roads Department,
Queensland.
Austroads 1992, Pavement design – a guide to the structural design of road pavements, AP -17/92,
Austroads, Sydney.
Austroads 1997, October 1997 Updates to: pavement design – a guide to the structural design of road
pavements, Austroads, Sydney.
Austroads Pavement Research Group 1998, A guide to the design of new pavements for light traffic – a
supplement to Austroads pavement design, APRG report no. 21, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont
South, Vic.
Jameson, GW 1996, Origins of Austroads design procedures for granular pavements. research report ARR
292, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Victoria.
Jameson, GW & Moffatt, MA 1998, Review of granular moduli for use in pavement design. Working
Document WD-R98/002, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Mincad Systems 1996, CIRCLY – user manual, MINCAD Systems, Richmond, Vic.
Moffatt, MA 1997, Example of the effect of traffic distribution on pavement design life. Working Document
WD-R97/014, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Moffatt, MA & Jameson, GW 1997, Development of a subgrade strain criterion for full width standard axle
modelling. Working Document WD-R97/068, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic..
Shell International Petroleum 1978, Shell pavement design manual: asphalt pavement and overlays for road
traffic, Shell, London, United Kingdom
US Army Corps of Engineers 1989, Flexible pavement design for airfields (elastic layered method, technical
manual 5-825-2-1/AFM 88-6, Departments of the Army and the Airforce, USA.
Youdale, G.P. (1984) Review of limiting subgrade strain criterion. Submission to NAASRA Working Group
on the Revision of NAASRA Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design (IGTPTD), April.
Austroads 2008
— 3.48 —
Attachment B1
Potter’s Proposed Procedures for Granular Subdivision and Modulus Assignment
Covering Letter to Geoff Jameson
Geoff,
Attached is my suggestion for a set of design rules for assignment of modulus to granular material
placed on the subgrade. The change from the current rules – although subtle – is significant.
Before any set of rules is adopted, I believe that the effect of the change of rules on levels of
critical strains needs to be investigated and considered.
Subsequent to writing the attachment, I now believe that the process of modulus assignment can
be further improved, and at the same time simplified, by replacing my Rules 1 and 2 by the
following:
Amended Design Rules

1. Divide the granular material into 5 equi-thick sublayers
2. Sublayer thickness t (mm) = T / 5
The effect of these amendments is to remove the discontinuities that occur in the plot of level of
critical strain versus total granular thickness as one changes from n sublayers to n+1 sublayers. I
have spoken to Leigh Wardle re minimum layer thicknesses allowable in CIRCLY 3 (or 4). He has
advised me not to go below 20 mm at the surface. This can be reduced somewhat – perhaps to
10 mm – within the pavement.
Based on this advice, the rules as amended would be OK for (total) granular thickness down to
50 mm when the granular material is well covered, and down to 100 mm when there is minimal
cover. These constraints don’t appear to me to be restrictive.
DAVID POTTER
Consulting Engineer
Austroads 2008
— 3.49 —
David Potter’s Initial Proposed Design Rules for Granular Subdivision / Modulus
Assignment (see covering note for extra refinement to these rules)
Suggested Design Rules for Assignment of Modulus to Granular Material Placed on the
Subgrade
Situation
We are placing T mm of granular material on a subgrade with (vertical) modulus EvSG.
Design Rules
1. Divide the granular material into n equi-thick sublayers, where:
n = minimum (5, integer(T/50))
(This ensures that the minimum sublayer thickness is 50 mm, while maximum number of
subgrade is 5)
2. Sublayer thickness t (mm) = T/n

(Vertical) modulus of top sublayer is given by:
EvTopGR = minimum (revised Table 6.6 entry, 2T/100 x EvSG )
4. Ratio of (vertical) moduli of adjacent sublayers is given (as currently) by:
R = (EvTopGR /EvSG )1/n
5. Determine (vertical) moduli for each sublayer in the current manner.
Notes
1. In design rule (1), the values 5 and 50 were (somewhat arbitrarily) selected on the grounds
of practicality. Either or both may be changed without upsetting the approach. The rule
can be presented as a simplified version of the current (1992 Guide) Table 8.2.
2. The additional constraint in design rule (3) simply ensures that the modular ratio, R, stays
within reasonable bounds when the sublayer thickness is small. Its effect is illustrated in
the following Table.
Sublayer Maximum
thickness modular
(mm) ratio (R)
50 1.4 ( = 20.5 )
100 2
150 2.8 ( = 21.5 )
Corresponding current values are 2, 4 and 8 respectively. See the attached plot. If one
wishes to ‘tighten the screws more’, one simply increases the value of 100 in the design
rule to 125 or 150 or whatever. For example, a change to 150 changes the above 3 values
to 1.26, 1.59 and 2 respectively.
Austroads 2008
— 3.50 —
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
(ETGR / ESG )max
16
15 CURRENT
14
13
12
11
10
9
PROPOSED
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
T (mm)
3. As the accompanying Table shows, the above rules imply that, for sprayed sealed granular
pavements designed according to Figure 8.4, a value of 500 MPa can be achieved for the
top (sublayer) of the granular material when Design ESAs > approx 2x105. In my view, this
is a reasonable result.
Minimum design ESAs for sprayed-sealed granular pavements such that the
top (sublayer) of the granular layer can be assigned a value of 500 MPa under
the above rules
CBR ETGR / ESG Tmin Design ESAs for Tmin

(mm) (Fig. 8.4)
2 25 464 < 105
3 16.7 406 1.6 x 105
4 12.5 364 105
5 10 332 2.5 x 105
7 7.1 283 2.5 x 105
10 5 232 4 x 105
15 3.3 174 2 x 105
20 2.5 132 105
30 1.7 74 < 105
Austroads 2008
— 3.51 —
Attachment B2
Results of CIRCLY Analysis for Determination of Subgrade Strain Performance Relationship
Table B.2.1: Results of CIRCLY analysis and life determined from
Austroads (1992) – Figure 8.4 and APRG (1998) – Figure 13.8.2(B) (90% confidence)
Granular Subgrade Critical strain determined Life from Life from Austroads Pavement life
thickness CBR by CIRCLY APRG (1998) Figure 13.8.2(B) (1992) Figure 8.4 (ESAs)
(mm) (με) (ESAs) (ESAs)
100 2 17130 0 0.0E+00
125 2 14690 0 0.0E+00
150 2 12180 0 0.0E+00
175 2 10110 0 0.0E+00
200 2 8372 0 0.0E+00
225 2 7056 0 0.0E+00
250 2 6044 0 0.0E+00
275 2 5204 0 0.0E+00
300 2 4577 0 0.0E+00
325 2 4057 0 0.0E+00
350 2 3674 0 0.0E+00
375 2 3297 0 0.0E+00
400 2 2934 0 0.0E+00
425 2 2613 0 0.0E+00
450 2 2326 0 0.0E+00
475 2 2064 1.1E+05 1.1E+05
500 2 1841 1.5E+05 1.5E+05
525 2 1675 2.2E+05 2.2E+05
550 2 1553 3.2E+05 3.2E+05
575 2 1444 4.5E+05 4.5E+05
600 2 1345 6.5E+05 6.5E+05
625 2 1256 9.3E+05 9.3E+05
650 2 1176 1.3E+06 1.3E+06
675 2 1103 1.9E+06 1.9E+06
700 2 1037 2.7E+06 2.7E+06
725 2 976.3 3.9E+06 3.9E+06
750 2 921.2 5.6E+06 5.6E+06
775 2 870.9 8.0E+06 8.0E+06
800 2 824.8 1.1E+07 1.1E+07
825 2 782.5 1.6E+07 1.6E+07
850 2 743.5 2.3E+07 2.3E+07
875 2 707.6 3.3E+07 3.3E+07
900 2 674.4 4.8E+07 4.8E+07
925 2 643.8 6.8E+07 6.8E+07
950 2 615.3 9.8E+07 9.8E+07
975 2 588.9 1.4E+08 1.4E+08
1000 2 564.4 2.0E+08 2.0E+08
100 3 11440 0 0.0E+00
125 3 9780 0 0.0E+00
150 3 8163 0 0.0E+00
175 3 6737 0 0.0E+00
200 3 5610 0 0.0E+00
225 3 4705 0 0.0E+00
250 3 3999 0 0.0E+00
Austroads 2008
— 3.52 —
Table B.2.1: Results of CIRCLY analysis and life determined from

Austroads (1992) – Figure 8.4 and APRG (1998) – Figure 13.8.2(B) (90% confidence) (contd)
Granular Subgrade Critical strain Life from Life from Austroads Pavement life
thickness CBR determined by CIRCLY APRG (1998) Figure (1992) Figure 8.4 (ESAs)
(mm) (με) 13.8.2(B) (ESAs) (ESAs)
275 3 3460 1.00E+03 1.0E+03
300 3 3044 5.00E+03 5.0E+03
325 3 2710 1.02E+04 1.0E+04
350 3 2440 3.50E+04 3.5E+05
375 3 2193 9.00E+04 9.0E+04
400 3 1948 1.3E+05 1.3E+05
425 3 1740 2.0E+05 2.0E+05
450 3 1564 3.2E+05 3.2E+05
475 3 1442 4.9E+05 4.9E+05
500 3 1332 7.6E+05 7.6E+05
525 3 1234 1.2E+06 1.2E+06
550 3 1145 1.8E+06 1.8E+06
575 3 1065 2.8E+06 2.8E+06
600 3 992.7 4.4E+06 4.4E+06
625 3 927.2 6.8E+06 6.8E+06
650 3 867.9 1.0E+07 1.0E+07
675 3 814.1 1.6E+07 1.6E+07
700 3 765.1 2.5E+07 2.5E+07
725 3 720.4 3.9E+07 3.9E+07
750 3 679.6 6.0E+07 6.0E+07
775 3 642.2 9.4E+07 9.4E+07
800 3 608 1.5E+08 1.5E+08
825 3 576.5 2.2E+08 2.2E+08
850 3 547.5 3.5E+08 3.5E+08
875 3 520.8 5.4E+08 5.4E+08
900 3 496.1 8.3E+08 8.3E+08
925 3 473.3 1.3E+09 1.3E+09
950 3 452.1 2.0E+09 2.0E+09
975 3 432.5 3.1E+09 3.1E+09
1000 3 414.2 4.8E+09 4.8E+09
100 4 8561 0 0.0E+00
125 4 7324 0 0.0E+00
150 4 6094 0 0.0E+00
175 4 5020 0 0.0E+00
200 4 4197 0 0.0E+00
225 4 3539 1.00E+03 1.0E+03
250 4 3006 3.50E+03 3.5E+03
275 4 2608 1.20E+04 1.2E+04
300 4 2284 3.50E+04 3.5E+04
325 4 2037 1.00E+05 1.0E+05
350 4 1829 1.5E+05 1.5E+05
375 4 1638 2.5E+05 2.5E+05
400 4 1476 4.2E+05 4.2E+05
425 4 1358 6.9E+05 6.9E+05
450 4 1251 1.2E+06 1.2E+06
475 4 1155 1.9E+06 1.9E+06
500 4 1068 3.2E+06 3.2E+06
Austroads 2008
— 3.53 —
Table B.2.1 (contd): Results of CIRCLY analysis and life determined from
thickness CBR determined by APRG (1998) Figure (1992) Figure 8.4 (ESAs)
(mm) CIRCLY ( ) 13.8.2(B) (ESAs) (ESAs)
525 4 990.1 5.3E+06 5.3E+06
550 4 919.4 8.8E+06 8.8E+06
575 4 855.5 1.5E+07 1.5E+07
600 4 797.7 2.5E+07 2.5E+07
625 4 745.3 4.1E+07 4.1E+07
650 4 697.7 6.8E+07 6.8E+07
675 4 654.5 1.1E+08 1.1E+08
700 4 615 1.9E+08 1.9E+08
725 4 579.1 3.1E+08 3.1E+08
750 4 546.2 5.2E+08 5.2E+08
775 4 516.1 8.7E+08 8.7E+08
800 4 488.4 1.4E+09 1.4E+09
825 4 463 2.4E+09 2.4E+09
850 4 439.6 4.0E+09 4.0E+09
875 4 418 6.7E+09 6.7E+09
900 4 398.1 1.1E+10 1.1E+10
925 4 379.6 1.8E+10 1.8E+10
950 4 362.5 3.1E+10 3.1E+10
975 4 346.6 5.1E+10 5.1E+10
1000 4 331.8 8.5E+10 8.5E+10
100 5 6850 0 0.0E+00
125 5 5871 0 0.0E+00
150 5 4870 0 0.0E+00
175 5 4030 0 0.0E+00
200 5 3359 0 0.0E+00
225 5 2823 6.00E+03 6.0E+03
250 5 2404 2.30E+04 2.3E+04
275 5 2081 9.00E+04 9.0E+04
300 5 1826 1.2E+05 1.2E+05
325 5 1628 2.2E+05 2.2E+05
350 5 1462 3.8E+05 3.8E+05
375 5 1345 6.8E+05 6.8E+05
400 5 1238 1.2E+06 1.2E+06
425 5 1141 2.2E+06 2.2E+06
450 5 1053 3.9E+06 3.9E+06
475 5 972.7 6.9E+06 6.9E+06
500 5 900.3 1.2E+07 1.2E+07
525 5 834.9 2.2E+07 2.2E+07
550 5 775.7 3.9E+07 3.9E+07
575 5 722.1 6.9E+07 6.9E+07
600 5 673.5 1.2E+08 1.2E+08
625 5 629.4 2.2E+08 2.2E+08
650 5 589.3 3.9E+08 3.9E+08
675 5 552.8 6.9E+08 6.9E+08
700 5 519.5 1.2E+09 1.2E+09
725 5 489.2 2.2E+09 2.2E+09
750 5 461.3 3.9E+09 3.9E+09
Austroads 2008
— 3.54 —
Table B.2.1 (continued): Results of CIRCLY analysis and life determined from
Granular Subgrade Critical strain determined Life from Life from Austroads (1992) Pavement life
thickness CBR by CIRCLY ( ) APRG (1998) Figure Figure 8.4 (ESAs)
(mm) 13.8.2(B) (ESAs) (ESAs)
775 5 435.8 6.9E+09 6.9E+09
800 5 412.4 1.2E+10 1.2E+10
825 5 390.9 2.2E+10 2.2E+10
850 5 371.1 3.9E+10 3.9E+10
875 5 352.8 7.0E+10 7.0E+10
900 5 335.8 1.2E+11 1.2E+11
925 5 320.2 2.2E+11 2.2E+11
950 5 305.6 3.9E+11 3.9E+11
975 5 292.2 7.0E+11 7.0E+11
1000 5 279.6 1.2E+12 1.2E+12
100 7 4897 0 0.0E+00
125 7 4188 0 0.0E+00
150 7 3479 0 0.0E+00
175 7 2880 3.00E+03 3.0E+03
200 7 2395 5.00E+04 5.0E+04
225 7 2012 7.00E+04 7.0E+04
250 7 1720 1.3E+05 1.3E+05
275 7 1487 2.7E+05 2.7E+05
300 7 1317 5.4E+05 5.4E+05
325 7 1200 1.1E+06 1.1E+06
350 7 1107 2.2E+06 2.2E+06
375 7 1022 4.4E+06 4.4E+06
400 7 943.6 8.9E+06 8.9E+06
425 7 871.4 1.8E+07 1.8E+07
450 7 805.4 3.6E+07 3.6E+07
475 7 745.4 7.3E+07 7.3E+07
500 7 690.8 1.5E+08 1.5E+08
525 7 641.3 3.0E+08 3.0E+08
550 7 596.3 6.0E+08 6.0E+08
575 7 555.5 1.2E+09 1.2E+09
600 7 518.4 2.4E+09 2.4E+09
625 7 484.6 4.9E+09 4.9E+09
650 7 453.9 9.9E+09 9.9E+09
675 7 425.9 2.0E+10 2.0E+10
700 7 400.3 4.0E+10 4.0E+10
725 7 376.9 8.1E+10 8.1E+10
750 7 355.4 1.6E+11 1.6E+11
775 7 335.7 3.3E+11 3.3E+11
800 7 317.7 6.6E+11 6.6E+11
825 7 301 1.3E+12 1.3E+12
850 7 285.7 2.7E+12 2.7E+12
875 7 271.5 5.4E+12 5.4E+12
900 7 258.4 1.1E+13 1.1E+13
925 7 246.2 2.2E+13 2.2E+13
950 7 235 4.5E+13 4.5E+13
975 7 224.5 9.0E+13 9.0E+13
1000 7 214.8 1.8E+14 1.8E+14
Austroads 2008
— 3.55 —
100 10 3426 0 0.0E+00
125 10 2929 0 0.0E+00
150 10 2439 1.00E+04 1.0E+04
175 10 2018 6.00E+04 6.0E+04
200 10 1676 1.3E+05 1.3E+05
225 10 1412 3.1E+05 3.1E+05
250 10 1229 7.4E+05 7.4E+05
275 10 1088 1.8E+06 1.8E+06
300 10 977.2 4.2E+06 4.2E+06
325 10 890.8 1.0E+07 1.0E+07
350 10 823.4 2.4E+07 2.4E+07
375 10 762.7 5.8E+07 5.8E+07
400 10 706 1.4E+08 1.4E+08
425 10 653.5 3.3E+08 3.3E+08
450 10 605.2 7.9E+08 7.9E+08
475 10 561 1.9E+09 1.9E+09
500 10 520.7 4.5E+09 4.5E+09
525 10 483.9 1.1E+10 1.1E+10
550 10 450.4 2.6E+10 2.6E+10
575 10 419.9 6.2E+10 6.2E+10
600 10 392.1 1.5E+11 1.5E+11
625 10 366.8 3.5E+11 3.5E+11
650 10 343.7 8.5E+11 8.5E+11
675 10 322.5 2.0E+12 2.0E+12
700 10 303.2 4.8E+12 4.8E+12
725 10 285.5 1.2E+13 1.2E+13
750 10 269.3 2.8E+13 2.8E+13
775 10 254.3 6.6E+13 6.6E+13
800 10 240.6 1.6E+14 1.6E+14
825 10 228 3.8E+14 3.8E+14
850 10 216.3 9.1E+14 9.1E+14
875 10 205.5 2.2E+15 2.2E+15
900 10 195.5 5.2E+15 5.2E+15
925 10 186.3 1.2E+16 1.2E+16
950 10 177.7 3.0E+16 3.0E+16
975 10 169.7 7.1E+16 7.1E+16
1000 10 162.3 1.7E+17 1.7E+17
100 15 2283 1.30E+03 1.3E+03
125 15 1954 1.20E+04 1.2E+04
150 15 1625 1.0E+05 1.0E+05
175 15 1367 3.2E+05 3.2E+05
200 15 1161 9.9E+05 9.9E+05
225 15 997.4 3.1E+06 3.1E+06
250 15 869 9.4E+06 9.4E+06
275 15 768.3 2.9E+07 2.9E+07
300 15 689.5 9.0E+07 9.0E+07
325 15 628.2 2.8E+08 2.8E+08
Austroads 2008
— 3.56 —
350 15 581.1 8.6E+08 8.6E+08
375 15 540.2 2.6E+09 2.6E+09
400 15 501.5 8.2E+09 8.2E+09
425 15 465.4 2.5E+10 2.5E+10
450 15 431.9 7.8E+10 7.8E+10
475 15 401.1 2.4E+11 2.4E+11
500 15 372.8 7.4E+11 7.4E+11
525 15 347 2.3E+12 2.3E+12
550 15 323.3 7.1E+12 7.1E+12
575 15 301.7 2.2E+13 2.2E+13
600 15 281.9 6.7E+13 6.7E+13
625 15 263.9 2.1E+14 2.1E+14
650 15 247.4 6.4E+14 6.4E+14
675 15 232.3 2.0E+15 2.0E+15
700 15 218.4 6.1E+15 6.1E+15
725 15 205.7 1.9E+16 1.9E+16
750 15 194 5.8E+16 5.8E+16
775 15 183.3 1.8E+17 1.8E+17
800 15 173.4 5.5E+17 5.5E+17
825 15 164.2 1.7E+18 1.7E+18
850 15 155.8 5.3E+18 5.3E+18
875 15 148 1.6E+19 1.6E+19
900 15 140.8 5.0E+19 5.0E+19
925 15 134.1 1.6E+20 1.6E+20
950 15 127.9 4.8E+20 4.8E+20
975 15 122.1 1.5E+21 1.5E+21
1000 15 116.7 4.6E+21 4.6E+21
100 20 1714 1.00E+04 1.0E+04
125 20 1485 1.0E+05 1.0E+05
150 20 1260 3.9E+05 3.9E+05
175 20 1065 1.5E+06 1.5E+06
200 20 905.9 5.9E+06 5.9E+06
225 20 778.4 2.3E+07 2.3E+07
250 20 677.7 8.7E+07 8.7E+07
275 20 598.8 3.4E+08 3.4E+08
300 20 537.1 1.3E+09 1.3E+09
325 20 489 5.0E+09 5.0E+09
350 20 452.3 1.9E+10 1.9E+10
375 20 421.5 7.4E+10 7.4E+10
400 20 392.2 2.9E+11 2.9E+11
425 20 364.6 1.1E+12 1.1E+12
450 20 338.9 4.2E+12 4.2E+12
475 20 315.1 1.6E+13 1.6E+13
500 20 293.2 6.3E+13 6.3E+13
525 20 273.1 2.4E+14 2.4E+14
550 20 254.7 9.4E+14 9.4E+14
575 20 237.8 3.6E+15 3.6E+15
Austroads 2008
— 3.57 —
thickness CBR determined by CIRCLY APRG (1998) Figure (1992) Figure 8.4 (ESAs)
(mm) ( ) 13.8.2(B) (ESAs) (ESAs)
600 20 222.4 1.4E+16 1.4E+16
625 20 208.2 5.4E+16 5.4E+16
650 20 195.3 2.1E+17 2.1E+17
675 20 183.4 8.0E+17 8.0E+17
700 20 172.5 3.1E+18 3.1E+18
725 20 162.5 1.2E+19 1.2E+19
750 20 153.3 4.6E+19 4.6E+19
775 20 144.8 1.8E+20 1.8E+20
800 20 137 6.8E+20 6.8E+20
825 20 129.8 2.6E+21 2.6E+21
850 20 123.1 1.0E+22 1.0E+22
875 20 116.9 3.9E+22 3.9E+22
900 20 111.2 1.5E+23 1.5E+23
925 20 105.9 5.8E+23 5.8E+23
950 20 101 2.2E+24 2.2E+24
975 20 96.39 8.6E+24 8.6E+24
1000 20 92.11 3.3E+25 3.3E+25
100 30 1169 1.1E+05 1.1E+05
125 30 1028 5.9E+05 5.9E+05
150 30 879.9 3.2E+06 3.2E+06
175 30 746.9 1.8E+07 1.8E+07
200 30 635.9 9.6E+07 9.6E+07
225 30 546.4 5.3E+08 5.3E+08
250 30 475.5 2.9E+09 2.9E+09
275 30 419.7 1.6E+10 1.6E+10
300 30 376.1 8.6E+10 8.6E+10
325 30 342.1 4.7E+11 4.7E+11
350 30 316.2 2.6E+12 2.6E+12
375 30 295.4 1.4E+13 1.4E+13
400 30 275.7 7.7E+13 7.7E+13
425 30 256.9 4.2E+14 4.2E+14
450 30 239.2 2.3E+15 2.3E+15
475 30 222.8 1.3E+16 1.3E+16
500 30 207.7 6.9E+16 6.9E+16
525 30 193.7 3.8E+17 3.8E+17
550 30 180.9 2.1E+18 2.1E+18
575 30 169.1 1.1E+19 1.1E+19
600 30 158.2 6.2E+19 6.2E+19
625 30 148.3 3.4E+20 3.4E+20
650 30 139.2 1.8E+21 1.8E+21
675 30 130.8 1.0E+22 1.0E+22
700 30 123.1 5.5E+22 5.5E+22
725 30 116 3.0E+23 3.0E+23
750 30 109.4 1.7E+24 1.7E+24
775 30 103.4 9.0E+24 9.0E+24
800 30 97.81 4.9E+25 4.9E+25
825 30 92.66 2.7E+26 2.7E+26
Austroads 2008
— 3.58 —
850 30 87.9 1.5E+27 1.5E+27
875 30 83.49 8.1E+27 8.1E+27
900 30 79.39 4.4E+28 4.4E+28
925 30 75.59 2.4E+29 2.4E+29
950 30 72.05 1.3E+30 1.3E+30
975 30 68.76 7.2E+30 7.2E+30
1000 30 65.69 4.0E+31 4.0E+31
Austroads 2008
— 3.59 —
APPENDIX C GRANULAR MATERIALS MODULI UNDER

ASPHALT AND CEMENTED MATERIAL
(APRIL 1998)
WD- R98/008 by M. Moffatt and G. Jameson, April 1998.
C.1 Introduction
Moffatt and Jameson (1998) contains a proposed procedure for the characterisation of modulus of
granular materials for use in the revised Austroads Pavement Design Guide. The current
procedures detailed in Austroads (1992) allow the maximum modulus of a granular material to be
developed regardless of the thickness of the granular layer or the strength of the subgrade. The
procedure detailed in Moffatt and Jameson alters the characterisation procedure, so that the
maximum modulus of granular material is dependent upon both granular material thickness and
subgrade strength.
Table 6.6 of Austroads (1992), reproduced here as Table C. 1, provides suggested values of the
vertical modulus of the top-sublayer of granular material when covered by asphalt (and cemented
material) of different thickness, and at different temperatures. With the wide variety of alternative
asphalt mixes, the use of temperature in this chart is no longer considered appropriate. A far more
appropriate parameter is the actual modulus of the overlying material.
Yeo et al. (1997) proposed an alternative form of this table, reproduced here as Table C. 2,
showing the suggested vertical modulus of granular material as a function of overlying asphalt
thickness and modulus. At the inaugural meeting of the Austroads Pavement Design Guide
Reference Group, it was decided that the form of the revised table was appropriate for inclusion in
the next edition of the Design Guide, but that it contained internal inconsistencies which needed to
be rectified before being adopted.
This report proposes a new version of this table, and also briefly documents the procedure used to
develop the values contained in the table.
Table C. 1: Suggested vertical modulus (MPa) of top sublayer of granular material

(Austroads 1992, Table 6.6)
Overlying material Weighted mean annual pavement temperature

20°C 25°C 30°C
Less than 25 mm asphalt 5001/350 5001/350 5001/350
50 mm asphalt 3501/350 5001/350 5001/350
100 mm asphalt 2101/150 3501/250 5001/350
150 mm asphalt 2101/150 2101/150 3501/250
Cemented material 2101/150 2101/150 2101/150
1
where material is compacted using Modified compactive effort.
Austroads 2008
— 3.60 —
Table C. 2: Suggested vertical modulus (MPa) of top sublayer of granular material

(Yeo et al. 1997, Table 6.6)
Overlying Modulus of asphalt (MPa)
Material 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
<25 mm asphalt 5001 / 350 5001 / 350 5001 / 350 4601 / 330 3801 / 270 3001 / 220 2401 / 180
50 mm asphalt 5001 / 350 5001 / 350 4601 / 320 3901 / 280 3101 / 230 2601 / 200 2301 / 180
75 mm asphalt 5001 / 350 5001 / 350 4101 / 290 3201 / 230 2301 / 180 2101 / 170 2101 / 170
100 mm asphalt 5001 / 350 4501 / 320 3401 / 250 2601 / 200 2201 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170
125 mm asphalt 5001 / 350 4001 / 280 2701 / 200 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170
150 mm asphalt 5001 / 350 3301 / 240 2401 / 180 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170
200 mm asphalt 4301 / 310 2301 / 180 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170
250 mm asphalt 2801 / 210 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170
300 mm asphalt 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170
cemented material 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170 2101 / 170
1 where material is compacted using modified compaction
C.2 Derivation of Table 6.6 of Austroads (1992)

The moduli values in Table 6.6 of Austroads (1992), reproduced here as Table C. 1, were derived
from a study by Geoff Youdale (Youdale 1983a and b). Youdale used a finite element package,
PAVAN1, to determine modulus values at various locations within a granular material which was
covered with asphalt. The granular material model was based on a octahedral stress-dependency
model of a Hornsby Breccia modified with 2% hydrated lime, representing a good quality crushed
rock base material, well compacted at roughly 2% below optimum.
Contour plots of granular modulus were made, and from these plots the entries in Table C. 1 for
material compacted using Standard compactive effort, covered by asphalt at 25°C of thicknesses
25, 50, 100 and 150 mm and covered by asphalt at 30°C of thicknesses 100 and 150 mm. From
these values all other values in Table C. 1 were extrapolated.
As part of this report, Youdale’s reports were reviewed. The contour plots developed do not seem
to bear out the conclusions drawn from them. It would appear that a value of 350 MPa had already
been identified as the maximum modulus achievable by granular materials, compacted using
Standard compactive effort, and that the significantly lower values shown in the contour plots were
shifted upwards. Such a shift would have been conducted in order that a match occur between a
value of 350 MPa for the top sublayer with a spray seal surface, and the value indicated by the
finite element analysis and subsequently derived contour plot.
It worth noting that a large number of the values in Table C. 1 are based on extrapolations of a
limited number of analyses. It would be inappropriate to further expand upon these extrapolations,
with a view to expanding the Table’s range of both thickness and modulus of cover, as has been
conducted in Yeo et al. (1997), and shown here in Table C. 2.
With a view to providing an expanded version of this table, additional modelling was conducted,
and is described below.
Austroads 2008
— 3.61 —
C.3 Procedure Used to Develop New Table

A series of CIRCLY (Mincad 1996) analyses were conducted in order to determine the stresses in
the top sublayer of granular material under covers of different combinations of asphalt thickness
and modulus.
Two different qualities of granular material were examined consistent with Austroads (1992).
These different qualities were characterised by the maximum and minimum modulus values the
material was considered to be able to achieve. The first quality, 350/150, was considered to be
able to achieve a maximum modulus of 350 MPa, and a minimum modulus of 150 MPa. This
range of modulus values matches with the standard compactive effort modulus values in
Table C. 1. The second quality was 500/210, which corresponds with Modified compactive effort
material in Table C. 1.
The maximum modulus of the granular material was assumed to occur in the top-sublayer under a
cover of 25 mm of 1000 MPa asphalt, which could be considered to be roughly equivalent to a
spray seal. The minimum modulus was assumed to be achieved under a cover of 150 mm of 3000
MPa asphalt, similar to the Austroads (1992) design procedures.
A series of granular pavements of thicknesses (300, 400 and 500 mm) were modelled with
subgrade vertical moduli of 70, 100, 150 and 200 MPa. Weaker pavements were not modelled as
these pavements may not have been able to develop the maximum modulus. For each pavement
the granular material was divided into five sublayers, as per the procedure in Moffatt and Jameson
(1998). Each pavement was analysed with a cover of 25 mm of 1000 MPa asphalt, and the mean
principal stress11 was determined at the mid-layer point of the top granular sublayer. The
pavements were loaded with a half-standard axle load (with a tyre pressure of 750 kPa) and the
principal stresses determined beneath one of the two wheels.
Similarly, each pavement was modelled with a cover of 150 mm of 3000 MPa asphalt, and the
mean principal stress determined at the mid-layer depth of the top granular sublayer.
Pavements whose top sublayer of granular material did not achieve its maximum modulus, due to
inadequate thickness of granular material for the specific subgrade strength, under 25 mm of
1000 MPa asphalt were excluded from any further analysis.
These two analyses provided mean principal stresses associated with the upper and lower bounds
of the top granular sublayer modulus. By taking the base-10 logarithm of both the stresses and the
modulus, and assuming that a linear relationship existed between them, these data then enabled
the interpolation of top-sublayer modulus for a given mean principal stress. Figure C. 7
schematically shows the derivation of the straight line relationship. These relationships were
developed for each of the two material qualities.
Subsequent modelling of the pavements with a variety of combinations of asphalt thickness and
modulus was then conducted. This modelling determined the mean principal stress under a
specific combination of asphalt thickness and modulus. Using the linear relationship between the
logarithm of stress and the logarithm of modulus, for the specific combination of granular material
thickness and subgrade strength, an initial modulus of the granular material was calculated. This
modulus was then used to seed a subsequent iteration of the analysis, which produced another
mean principal stress, and hence estimation of modulus. This iteration stage was conducted three
times.
11
In determining the mean principal stress, principal tensile stresses were set to zero.
Austroads 2008
— 3.62 —
1000 MPa 25 mm
350 MPa
Log( Etop )
Log( σmean )
3000 MPa 150 mm
150 MPa
Figure C. 7: Schematic of process used to derive relationship between

mean principal stress and vertical modulus
C.4 Results of Analysis

For each combination of asphalt thickness and modulus and granular material quality, the modulus
values for the range of pavements with varying subgrade strengths and granular thicknesses were
averaged, and results rounded to the nearest 5 MPa to produce Table C. 3 - Table C. 4.
Austroads 2008
— 3.63 —
C.5 Bound Cement Material Cover

Table C. 3: Suggested vertical modulus (MPa) of top sublayer of granular material for
standard-quality granular materials under asphalt cover
material 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
25 mm 350 335 330 325 320 315 310 305
50 mm 325 310 300 290 285 280 275 270
35 mm 295 275 265 255 245 240 235 230
75 mm 255 235 220 210 200 195 190 185
100 mm 225 205 190 180 170 165 160 160
125 mm 205 180 165 160 150 150 150 150
150 mm 185 160 150 150 150 150 150 150
175 mm 165 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
200 mm 155 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
225 mm 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
250 mm 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
275 mm 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
300 mm 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Table C. 1 contains suggested values for the top sublayer modulus of granular material when
covered by cement treated material. In order to determine whether the values contained in
Table C. 3 - Table C. 4 are equally applicable to bound cement material cover as they are to
asphalt cover, the above analysis procedure was repeated for cover moduli of 2000 and 5000
MPa, but changing the Poisson’s Ratio from 0.40 (asphalt) to 0.2 (bound cement material). The
results, shown in Table C. 5 - Table C. 6, indicate very little difference from the corresponding
values in Tables C.3-C.4. Therefore, Tables C.3-C.4 can be re-written to express the modulus of
the top sublayer of granular material as a function of covering bound material thickness and
modulus, and not just asphalt thickness and modulus as was the case in Tables C.3-C.4. This has
been done in Table C. 7 - Table C. 8.
high-quality granular materials under asphalt cover

material 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
25 mm 500 475 465 460 450 445 440 435
35 mm 460 440 425 415 410 400 395 385
50 mm 420 395 380 365 350 345 335 330
75 mm 370 335 315 300 285 275 270 265
100 mm 325 290 270 255 245 235 225 220
125 mm 290 255 235 220 210 210 210 210
150 mm 260 230 210 210 210 210 210 210
175 mm 235 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
200 mm 215 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
225 mm 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
250 mm 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
275 mm 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
300 mm 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
Austroads 2008
— 3.64 —
Table C. 5: Suggested vertical modulus (MPa) of top sublayer of granular material for standard-
quality granular materials under bound cement material cover (c.f. Table C.3)
Overlying Modulus of cemented
material material (MPa)
2000 5000
25 mm 335 315
35 mm 305 280
50 mm 275 245
75 mm 230 200
100 mm 200 170
125 mm 180 150
150 mm 160 150
175 mm 150 150
200 mm 150 150
225 mm 150 150
250 mm 150 150
275 mm 150 150
300 mm 150 150
high-quality granular materials under bound cement material cover (c.f. Table C.4)
Overlying Modulus of cemented

material material (MPa)
2000 5000
25 mm 470 440
35 mm 435 400
50 mm 390 345
75 mm 330 285
100 mm 285 245
125 mm 255 210
150 mm 230 210
175 mm 210 210
200 mm 210 210
225 mm 210 210
250 mm 210 210
275 mm 210 210
300 mm 210 210
Austroads 2008
— 3.65 —
Table C. 7: Suggested vertical modulus (MPa) of top sublayer of

granular material for standard-quality granular materials
Overlying Modulus of cover material (MPa)
Material 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
25 mm 350 335 330 325 320 315 310 305
50 mm 325 310 300 290 285 280 275 270
35 mm 295 275 265 255 245 240 235 230
75 mm 255 235 220 210 200 195 190 185
100 mm 225 205 190 180 170 165 160 160
125 mm 205 180 165 160 150 150 150 150
150 mm 185 160 150 150 150 150 150 150
175 mm 165 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
200 mm 155 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
225 mm 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
250 mm 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
275 mm 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
300 mm 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Table C. 8: Suggested vertical modulus (MPa) of top sublayer of

granular material for high quality granular materials
Overlying Modulus of cover material (MPa)
material 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
25 mm 500 475 465 460 450 445 440 435
35 mm 460 440 425 415 410 400 395 385
50 mm 420 395 380 365 350 345 335 330
75 mm 370 335 315 300 285 275 270 265
100 mm 325 290 270 255 245 235 225 220
125 mm 290 255 235 220 210 210 210 210
150 mm 260 230 210 210 210 210 210 210
175 mm 235 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
200 mm 215 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
225 mm 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
250 mm 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
275 mm 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
300 mm 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
Austroads 2008
— 3.66 —
C.6 Cover Comprised of Multiple Bound Materials

Some pavements comprise layers of different moduli of bound material (asphalt or cemented
material) overlying granular layers. It is proposed that for such pavements an equivalent modulus
(Ee) of the bound material be calculated using the following formula:
( )
3
⎛ n ⎞
⎜ ∑ t i (E i ) 3
1
⎟
E e = ⎜ i =1 ⎟
⎜ T ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
where
E e = equivalent modulus of total thickness of bound material (MPa)
E i = modulus of layer i (MPa)
t i = thickness of layer i (mm)
T = total thickness of overlying bound materials (mm)
Based on values of Ee and T so calculated, the vertical modulus of the top sublayer of granular
materials are then calculated from Tables C.7-C.8.
C.7 Summary and Recommendations

It is recommended that Tables C.7-C.8 replace the existing Table 6.6 in the Austroads Pavement
Design Guide. These tables provide suggested values for the vertical modulus of the top sublayer
of granular materials as a function of thickness and modulus of covering material. Furthermore, it
is also recommended that the procedure described in Section C.6 above be incorporated into the
Guide to provide guidance on estimating the effective combined modulus of a cover comprised of
multiple materials.
Austroads 2008
— 3.67 —
REFERENCES
Austroads, Sydney.
Mincad Systems 1996, CIRCLY – user manual, MINCAD Systems, Richmond, Vic.
Moffatt, MA & Jameson, GW 1998, Characterisation of granular material and development of a subgrade
strain criterion. Working Document no. WD-R98/005ARRB, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont
South, Vic.
Yeo, REY, Jameson, GW & Moffatt, MA 1997, Pavement materials – granular materials/cemented materials
– draft revision of the Austroads pavement design guide. Working Document no. WD-R97/071, ARRB
Youdale, GP 1983, Investigation of the variation of stiffness with depth of a granular layer under variable
thickness of asphaltic concrete: Report to Working Group’, July and October.
Austroads 2008
— 3.68 —
APPENDIX D GRANULAR MATERIALS MODULI UNDER

ASPHALT AND CEMENTED MATERIAL
(JUNE 2003)
2004 Austroads Pavement Design Guide Reference Group
Discussion Note Table 6.4: Granular Moduli Under Asphalt, June 2003
Currently, the 2004 Austroads Pavement Rehabilitation Guide overlay design procedures are being
revised due to the changes that have recently been made to the procedures in the Austroads
Pavement Design Guide. These changes included changes to Table 6.4 of the Pavement Design
Guide which gives granular moduli under various thicknesses and moduli of overlaying asphalt.
The current Tables (May 2003 Austroads Guide draft) are given below. The values in the Tables
were derived from the moduli in Table 6.6 of the 1992 Guide.
Table 6.4(a): Suggested vertical modulus (MPa) of top sublayer of normal standard base material, May 2003
Thickness of Modulus of cover1 material (MPa)

overlying 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
material
40 mm 350 350 350 340 280
75 mm 350 350 340 270 210
100 mm 350 350 290 220 160
125 mm 350 340 240 170 150
150 mm 350 290 190 150 150
175 mm 350 240 150 150 150
200 mm 350 190 150 150 150
250 mm 260 150 150 150 150
>=300 mm 150 150 150 150 150
1. Cover material is either asphalt or cemented material or a combination of these materials.
Table 6.4(b): Suggested vertical modulus (MPa) of top sublayer of high standard base material, May 2003

overlying 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
material
40 mm 500 500 500 480 400
75 mm 500 500 480 380 300
100 mm 500 500 410 310 230
125 mm 500 490 340 240 210
150 mm 500 410 270 210 210
175 mm 500 340 210 210 210
200 mm 500 270 210 210 210
250 mm 380 210 210 210 210
>=300 mm 210 210 210 210 210
Austroads 2008
— 3.69 —
Recently the moduli estimated from these tables have been used to predict the variation in FWD
deflections with asphalt temperature, as part of the development of procedures to adjust measured
deflections from the measurement temperature to the WMAPT.
As seen from the examples given in Figure D. 1, the May 2003 Table 6.4 results in a counter-
intuitive variation in FWD deflections with temperature for some pavement configurations.
50mm,100mm and 150 mm asphalt on 500mm granular on subgrade CBR=3
1.4
190MPa Top Granular Moduli
350MPa
230MPa 350MPa
1.3 350MPa 350MPa
270MPa 350MPa
310MPa 350MPa
FWD maximum deflections (mm)
350MPa 350MPa
1.2
350MPa
1.1
350MPa 350MPa
150MPa 170MPa
150MPa 210MPa 250MPa 290MPa 330MPa 350MPa 350MPa
1.0
350MPa
350MPa 350MPa
0.9 230MPa 270MPa 310MPa
150MPa 190MPa
150MPa
150MPa
0.8 150MPa
150MPa
0.7
0.6
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Asphalt Temperature (C)
50mm 100mm 150mm
Figure D. 1: Examples of predicted FWD maximum deflections (566 kPa)

variation with temperature using May 2003 Table 6.4
To shed further light on the issue, the literature was briefly examined. Of particular interest was a
paper by Andrew Dawson of the University of Nottingham summarising research undertaken by
Lois Plaistow and himself. The authors used an FEM package called FENLAP to calculate the
granular moduli variation with depth under asphalt thicknesses of 50 mm, 100 mm, 150 mm and
250 mm and asphalt moduli of 2000, 5000 and 8000 MPa. The data was reported for only one
type of granular material, a hard limestone with a high modulus.
Reading from the graphs in the paper, the granular moduli 50 mm below the bottom of the asphalt
were estimated. These moduli were assumed to be similar to the Austroads top granular modulus.
Given the granular material tested was atypical of commonly-used Australian materials, the use of
the Dawson data was limited to an examination of the relative effects of asphalt thickness and
modulus on granular moduli as follows:
Firstly, the data was used to estimate the moduli under 50 mm of asphalt with an asphalt modulus
of 3000 MPa. The granular modulus was about 560 MPa.
The ratio of the granular modulus at each asphalt thickness and asphalt modulus to the reference
modulus of 560 MPa, was then calculated. These were called relative granular moduli.
Based on the assumption that the stiffness of an asphalt layer is related to its moment of inertia (I)
multiplied by its modulus (E) (Odemark’s method of equivalent thickness), the following stiffness
parameter was calculated for each combination of asphalt thickness and asphalt modulus:
Austroads 2008
— 3.70 —
= Asphalt thickness x 3 Asphalt m odulus
The relative granular moduli variation with the stiffness parameter (asphalt thickness x Eac0.3333)
estimated from Dawson’s data is given in Figure D. 2. As anticipated granular modulus is closely
related to the stiffness parameter as the stiffness of the overlaying asphalt influences the load-
induced stresses in underlying granular materials.
1.0
0.9
0.8
Relative Granular Modulus
0.7
Based on Dawson (1999)

0.6 y = 7.40E-08x2 - 4.90E-04x + 1.31
0.5
0.4 June 2003 revision Table 6.4

y = -3.804E-04x + 1.377
0.3
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Asphalt thickness*Eac^0.3333
Revised Table 6.4 Dawson 1999
Figure D. 2: Comparison of relative granular moduli variation with the stiffness parameter
estimated from Dawson’s data
In contrast to Dawson’s results, the May 2003 Table 6.4 moduli do not vary consistently with the
stiffness parameter as seen from Figure D. 3.
Based on May 2003 Table 6.4
1.0
0.9
Relative Granular Moduli
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Asphalt thickness X E^0.3333
40 mm 75mm 100mm 125mm 150mm 175mm 200mm
Figure D. 3: Comparison of relative granular modulus and asphalt thickness

(May 2003, Table 6.6 data)
Austroads 2008
— 3.71 —
Based on the above it was concluded that the May 2003 Table 6.4 needs to be revised. Two
possible options are identified:
Revise Table 6.4 completely used Dawson’s and other published data. Although this option
would provide improved granular material moduli, it has the disadvantage that it requires the
recently revised Example Design Charts to be recalculated. Given the current project timings
this option is not considered viable in the short-term, but is recommended for future
investigation.
Retain the May 2003 Table 6.4 granular moduli for asphalt modulus of 3000 MPa as these
granular moduli were recently used to revise the Example Charts. The granular moduli for
other asphalt moduli can then be estimated assuming the granular moduli are related to the
stiffness parameter.
Consequently in this discussion note, the granular moduli using Option (2) were calculated.
The first step was to use the May 2003 granular moduli for 3000 MPa to develop a relationship
between relative granular modulus to the stiffness parameter. The results are plotted in
Figure D.2, marked ‘June 2003 Table 6.4’.
Using the ‘June 2003’ relationship given in Figure D. 2, granular moduli for all thickness and moduli
of overlying asphalt were then estimated. These revised granular moduli are given below:
Using these June 2003 granular moduli, the variation of FWD deflection with temperature was
predicted (Figure D. 4). The revised granular moduli result in more logical variations in deflection
with temperature.
Table 6.4(a): Suggested vertical modulus (MPa) of top sublayer of normal-standard base material, June 2003

overlying 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
material
40 mm 350 350 350 350 350
75 mm 350 350 340 320 310
100 mm 350 310 290 270 250
125 mm 320 270 240 220 200
150 mm 280 230 190 160 150
175 mm 250 190 150 150 150
200 mm 220 150 150 150 150
225 mm 180 150 150 150 150
>=250 mm 150 150 150 150 150
Austroads 2008
— 3.72 —
Table 6.4(b): Suggested vertical modulus (MPa) of top sublayer of high-standard base material, June 2003

overlying 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
material
40 mm 500 500 500 500 500
75 mm 500 500 480 460 440
100 mm 500 450 410 390 360
125 mm 450 390 350 310 280
150 mm 400 330 280 240 210
175 mm 360 270 210 210 210
200 mm 310 210 210 210 210
225 mm 260 210 210 210 210
>=250 mm 210 210 210 210 210
50 mm. 100 mm and 150 mm asphalt of 500 mm granular on subgrade CBR=3

1.4
Top Granular Moduli
350MPa
1.3 350MPa
350MPa
350MPa 350MPa
FWD maximum deflections (mm)
350MPa 350MPa
350MPa
1.2 350MPa 350MPa
350MPa
350MPa 350MPa
1.1
340MPa
320MPa 330MPa
310MPa 280MPa
290MPa 300MPa
1.0 270MPa 280MPa
260MPa 250MPa 260MPa
230MPa 250MPa
220MPa 240MPa
0.9 210MPa
200MPa
180MPa
150MPa 160MPa
0.8 150MPa
150MPa
0.7
0.6
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Asphalt Temperature (C)
50mm 100mm 150mm
Figure D. 4: Examples of variation in predicted FWD deflection with temperature

(using June 2003 Table 6.4)
Note that, compared to the May 2003 Table 6.4 moduli, the June 2003 granular moduli are:
lower for WMAPTs > 30°C,
the same for WMAPTs 25°C-30°C
higher for WMAPTs < 25°C.
Based on the assumption that additional funds/time will not be provided to revise the Example
Design Charts, it is recommended that the revised Table 6.4 given in this Discussion Note be
adopted in the 2004 Austroads Pavement Design Guide.
Geoff Jameson
Principal Research Scientist
Austroads 2008
— 3.73 —
REFERENCES
Dawson, A 1999, ‘Implications of granular material characteristics on the response of different pavement
constructions’, in AG Correia (ed.) Unbound granular materials: laboratory testing, in-situ testing and
modelling, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Austroads 2008
— 3.74 —
APPENDIX E RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND FLEXURAL
MODULUS FOR CEMENTED MATERIALS
WD- R98/024 by M. Moffatt and R. Yeo, August 1998.
E.1 Background
This document details the basis for a change in the relationship between flexural modulus and
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) used for estimation of the elastic properties of cemented
granular materials in the Austroads Pavement Design Guide (Austroads, 1992). This work has
been undertaken as part of the Austroads National Strategic Research Program Project
NT&E9617B titled ‘Revision of the Austroads Pavement Design Guide’.
E.2 Existing relationships between ucs and flexural modulus of

cemented materials
Austroads (1992) currently provides two equations relating UCS to modulus. These relationships
were included in the Guide to provide a means for estimation of design modulus where actual
moduli values were not available. The two relationships are reproduced below as eqns (E.1) and
(E.2).
E = 1814 UCS0.88 + 3500 for cemented crushed rock E.1
E = 2240 UCS0.88 + 1100 for cemented natural gravel E.2

Where = Elastic Modulus (MPa)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa).
A previous project report (Yeo et al, 1997) contained draft revised sections of Chapter 6 of the
Austroads Guide. This report suggested a more suitable relationship would be that reproduced
here as eqn (E.3).
EFLEX = 2966 UCS0.83 for cemented crushed rock and E.3

cemented natural gravel
Where EFLEX = Flexural modulus at 28 days moist curing (MPa)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength at 28 days
(MPa).
Yeo (1997) detailed the origin of eqns (E.1) and (E.2), and also documented the procedure used to
derive eqn (E.3). Yeo noted that the equations are based on the work by Otte (1978) in South
Africa on data collected from flexural beam samples of field-placed and cured cemented material.
Yeo (1997) examined Otte’s data set, and other possible sources of new, and in particular
Australian, data, and concluded that, at the current time, Otte’s data represented the best
available.
Austroads 2008
— 3.75 —
The data collected by Otte included values of flexural modulus in the range of 1000 MPa to nearly
40,000 MPa (corresponding to a UCS of about 34 MPa). As this data far exceeded that required
for the pavement design incorporating cemented materials in Australia, Yeo limited the data set to
values of flexural modulus below 20,000 MPa and determined a new relationship between UCS
and flexural modulus (eqn (E.3)).
Copies of the Yeo at al. (1997) and Yeo (1997) reports were circulated to members of the
Austroads Pavement Design Guide Reference Group for comment. The Group decided that the
form of eqn (E.3) implied a degree of precision unwarranted by the amount of scatter in the data
used to determine the regression relationship. The Group determined that a straight line
relationship would provide an equally valid fit to the data, and would not imply such a high degree
of precision. This report documents the procedure used to derive such a simplified regression
equation.
E.3 Data Set Used To Derive New Relationship

The data set used to derive a revised equation was that collected by Otte (1978), limited to values
of UCS below 5 MPa.
In addition to the Otte data, VicRoads was able to supply a very limited amount of preliminary data
from a current research project. This data included both UCS and flexural modulus for samples
which were manufactured in the laboratory, as well as data from field-placed and cured material.
All the VicRoads data was determined at 28 days. The VicRoads project is continuing, and will be
comprehensively documented elsewhere.
E.4 Regression Analysis

Figure E. 1 shows the data, as well as the straight regression line (eqn (E.4)) which was found to
best fit the data.
EFLEX = 3,013 UCS E.4

Where EFLEX = Flexural Modulus at 28 days moist curing
(MPa)
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength at 28
days (MPa).
Adjusted R2 = 0.60
Standard Error of Estimate = 2692
Austroads 2008
— 3.76 —
20,000
18,000
16,000
Flexural Modulus (28 days curing) (MPa)
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
-
- 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) (28 days curing) (MPa)
Cement Treated Crusher Run (Otte) Cement Treated Natural Gravel (Otte)
Lab-Cement Treated Crushed Concrete (VicRoads) Field-Cement Treated Cruched Rock (VicRoads)
Lab-Cement Treated Class 3 Crushed Rock (VicRoads) E = 3013 x UCS
Figure E. 1: Relationship between UCS and flexural modulus at 28 days
Eqn (E.4) is a simpler relationship than that suggested by Yeo (1997). Furthermore it was found
that simplifying the multiplier of UCS to 3000 (eqn (E.5)) yielded a line which fitted the data equally
well as that shown in eqn (E.4):
EFLEX = 3000 UCS E.5

(MPa)
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength at 28 days
(MPa).
E.5 Recommendation
It is recommended that the suggested relationship for relating flexural modulus to UCS for
cemented materials in the Austroads Pavement Design Guide be revised to the following:
EFLEX 3000 UCS for cemented crushed rock and

cemented natural gravel
(MPa)
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength at 28 days
(MPa).
Austroads 2008
— 3.77 —
REFERENCES
Austroads, Sydney
Otte, E 1978, A structural design procedure for cement-treated layers in pavements. DScEng, Thesis,
University of Pretoria.
Yeo, REY 1997, Basis for revision of modulus correlations for cemented materials, Working Document WD-
R97/072, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic
Yeo, REY, Jameson, GW & Moffatt, MA 1997, Pavement materials – granular materials/cemented materials
– draft revision of the Austroads pavement design guide, Working Document WD-R97/071, ARRB
Austroads 2008
— 3.78 —
APPENDIX F DISCUSSION NOTE ON ESTIMATING

CEMENTED MATERIALS MODULUS FROM
UCS (JUNE 2000)
Prepared for 2001 Guide Reference Group (June 2000)
At the December 1999 meeting of the Austroads Pavement Design Guide Reference Group,
concern was expressed about the adoption of the following relationship between UCS and flexural
modulus (Moffatt and Yeo 1998):
EFLEX = 3000 UCS F.1

Where EFLEX = flexural modulus of field beams after 28 days
moist curing (MPa),
UCS = unconfined compressive strength of field
specimens at 28 days (MPa)
A material with a 7 day UCS of 2 MPa has a 28-day UCS of field core of about 2.5 MPa. Using
eqn (F1), the 28-day flexural modulus is 7,500 MPa. This value is very high compared to
Queensland Department of Main Roads (QDMR) specifications and design procedures where a
design modulus of 2000 MPa is associated with a crushed rock with a 7 day UCS of laboratory
specimens of 2 MPa.
More specifically the QDMR relationships are as follows:
A design modulus of 5000 MPa is used for Category 1 cemented materials
Crushed rocks covering a wide range of source rocks but excluding materials that are likely
to break down further in service. Materials are required to have a minimum 7-day UCS of 3
MPa.
A design modulus of 2000 MPa is used for Category 2 cemented materials
Type A materials: crushed rocks covering a wide range of source rocks but excluding
materials which are likely to break down further in service. Materials are required to have a
minimum 7-day UCS of 2 MPa.
Type B materials: loams, gravels with excess fines or coarse-grained decomposed rock.
The minimum 7-day UCS of these materials is 3 MPa.
These QDMR design modulus values were based on a laboratory tested program together with
moduli back calculated from pavement deflection testing (Litwinowicz 1986).
It is considered that at least part of the reason eqn (F.1) produces higher modulus values is that
the relationship predicts the relationship between the UCS of field cores and the flexural modulus
of field beams rather than the UCS of laboratory specimens and the flexural modulus of field
beams.
A study conducted for VicRoads (Alderson 1999) suggests that the laboratory UCS values are on
average 1.4 times the UCS values of field cores when tested at 28 days.
Austroads 2008
— 3.79 —
Using this factor and eqn (F.1), the following relationship is obtained:

Where EFLEX = flexural modulus of field beams at 28 days
(MPa),
UCS = unconfined compressive strength of laboratory
specimens at 28 days (MPa)
Using eqn (F.2), a 7-day UCS of 2 MPa (28-day 2.5 MPa) results in a design modulus of 5,350
MPa compared to the QDMR value of 2000 MPa.
Similarly, a 7-day UCS of 3 MPa (28 day 3.9 MPa) results in a design modulus of 8,350 MPa
compared to the QDMR value of 5000 MPa.
The values using eqn (F.2) are still well in excess of current QDMR practice.
Since the production of the Moffatt and Yeo (2000) report, VicRoads has completed a project
assessing relationships between various cemented material test parameters (Alderson 1999).
Alderson reported the following relationship between flexural modulus and UCS of laboratory
specimens:

Where EFLEX = flexural modulus of laboratory beams at 28
days (MPa),
specimens at 28 days (MPa).
Alderson reported that the laboratory flexural moduli were 2.5 times the flexural moduli of field
beams. However, the field and laboratory beams were about 3% different in density on average.
Correcting for this difference in modulus, it is estimated that the flexural modulus of the laboratory
beams was about 1.6 times the flexural modulus of the field beams. Using this factor of 1.6 and
eqn (F.3), and rounding off, the following relationship was derived:
EFLEX = 1,500 UCS F.4

(MPa)
Note that eqn (F.4) still estimates flexural moduli in excess of the current QDMR procedures. For
example, for a 7-day UCS of 2 MPa (28-day UCS of 2.9 MPa) the flexural modulus is 4,300 MPa,
compared to a value of 2000 MPa used by QDMR.
Austroads 2008
— 3.80 —
During the laboratory testing that formed the basis of the current QDMR relationships (Litwinowicz
1986), it was observed that:
for a 7-day UCS of 2 MPa (Category 2 material), the 28 day laboratory flexural modulus was
about 4,500 MPa
for a 7-day UCS of 3 MPa (Category 1 material), the 28 day laboratory flexural modulus was
about 8,500 MPa.
However, lower design moduli were adopted because the laboratory moduli were not being
achieved in the field and premature pavement distress had been observed on occasions.
A relationship better fitting current QDMR practice has been calculated as follows:
For Category 1 materials and Category 2 Type A materials:
EFLEX = 420 UCS2.26 F.5

(MPa)
For Category 2 Type B materials only the modulus of 2000 MPa for a 7-day UCS of 3 MPa was
used; therefore there was no need for a prediction equation.
The draft text of Chapter 6 of the 2001 Austroads Guide has been changed to include eqn (F.4).
However, given the considerable scatter in the relationship between UCS and modulus and QDMR
practice, it is recommended that the Reference Group consider whether the Guide should include a
relationship, and if so:
simply adopt a relationship based on QDMR practice, viz. eqn (F.5);
alternatively, undertake a detailed review of the data concerning this relationship.
The Reference Group should also consider adopting the Indirect Tensile Modulus rather than the
UCS as the specified material parameter.
Austroads 2008
— 3.81 —
REFERENCES
Alderson, AJ 1999, Summary of Vicroads research into cement-treated materials, Contract Report RC
90216, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Litwinowicz, A 1986, Characterisation of cement stabilised crushed rock, M. Eng. Thesis, University of
Queensland.
Moffatt, M, Yeo, R (2000) Relationship between Unconfined compressive strength and flexural Modulus for
cemented material. ARRB Transport Working Document WD-R98/024.
Austroads 2008
— 3.82 —
APPENDIX G DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIP TO

ADJUST ITT MODULUS FROM TEST
LOADING RATE TO OPERATING SPEED IN-
SERVICE
A procedure was required in the 2004 Austroads Pavement Design Guide to adjust the indirect
tensile test (ITT) asphalt moduli from the test value obtained at a rise time of 40 ms to an in-service
value at a design vehicle speed.
As the ITT uses neither a step-shaped pulse nor a sinusoidal pulse, the following relationships –
currently used in the Austroads Guide to predict asphalt modulus using the Shell nomographs –
are not appropriate
loading time (t, seconds) = 1/Speed (V, km/h) G.1
frequency (f, Hz) = Speed (V, km/h)/ 2π G.2
The following procedure was used to develop the relationship adopted in the 2004 Austroads
Guide:
Using VicRoads results at 25°C of flexural modulus (10 Hz) and ITT on a wide range of approved
Victorian asphalt mixes, it was calculated that the ratio of the ITT modulus at 40 ms to the flexural
modulus at 10 Hz to was 1.33. These results are summarised in Table G. 1.
Using the following relationship for the variation in flexural modulus with test frequency of a typical
Victorian Class 320 binder dense-graded asphalt (Jameson and Hopman 2000), it was calculated
that a frequency of loading in the flexural beam test of 20 Hz would be required to increase the
modulus to the same modulus as the ITT with a rise time of 40 ms.
Ef G.3
log = 0.365(log(f) − 1)
E 10
Using eqn (G.3), the sinusoidal frequencies for a range of vehicle speeds were calculated and the
ratios of the moduli to the values at 20 Hz calculated. Note that, as the flexural modulus at 20 Hz
was assumed to be equivalent to an ITT modulus at 40 ms, these moduli ratios were equivalent to
the ratios of the modulus at the design traffic speed to the ITT modulus at 40 ms. A regression
analysis of this data yielded the following relationship:
Modulus at speed V G.4

= 0.17 V 0.365
ITT mod ulus
This relationship is plotted in Table G. 1.
Austroads 2008
— 3.83 —
REFERENCE
Jameson, GW & Hopman, PC 2000, Development of relationships between laboratory loading rate and traffic
speed, APRG document 00/16, Austroads Pavement Research Group, June.
Austroads 2008
— 3.84 —
Table G. 1: VicRoads Flexural and ITT Modulus Data at 25°C

Flexural Air Modulus Adjusted Air Modulus ITT
Mix type modulus adjustment flexural ITT modulus adjustment adjusted ITT/Flex
10 Hz voids to 7% AV modulus voids to 7% AV to 7% AV
14H320 3497 5.9 0.93 3242 4857 7.8 1.06 5151
2043 6.7 0.98 2000 3205 8.5 1.12 3590
4446 6.5 0.97 4293 3271 6.6 0.97 3180
Mean 3178 Mean 3974 1.25
14N170 1826 6 0.93 1704 2664 6.8 0.99 2626

4170 6.3 0.95 3971 2895 7.1 1.01 2916
Mean 2838 Mean 2771 0.98
14V320 2672 7.6 1.04 2792 3551 9.1 1.18 4178

2792 4178 1.50
20T320 2922 6.1 0.94 2746 3585 8.7 1.14 4080

1866 6 0.93 1742 3038 7.2 1.01 3082
4021 7.2 1.01 4079 3799 8.1 1.09 4123
Mean 2855 Mean 3762 1.32
20T600 3960 4.8 0.86 3422 7545 8.8 1.15 8658

2096 6.1 0.94 1969 3374 7.8 1.06 3578
4750 7.5 1.04 4926 4134 7 1.00 4134
Mean 3439 Mean 5457 1.59
Mean ratio of ITT/flexural modulus 1.33
Austroads 2008
— 3.85 —
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.365
y = 0.1714x
0.7
Ev / E ITT(40ms) 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Design Speed (km/h)
Figure G. 1: Relationship to estimate modulus a design speed from

ITT modulus using 40 ms rise time
Austroads 2008
— 3.86 —
APPENDIX H DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIP TO

ADJUST ITT MODULUS FROM
MEASUREMENT TEMPERATURE TO
WMAPT
In Section 6.4 of the 2004 Guide, the following relationship is provided to adjust ITT moduli from
the standard test temperature of 25°C to the operating temperature in-service (WMAPT):
Modulus at WMAPT H.1

= exp( −0.08(WMAPT − 25))
Modulus at 25 o C
This relationship is only applicable for WMAPT values between 10°C and 42°C; all listed WMAPTs
in the 2004 Austroads Guide are within this range.
The origins of this relationship are as follows:
Asphalt moduli were back-calculated from Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) deflections
measured on a full-depth asphalt pavement as part of the Mulgrave ALF trial (Jameson, Sharp and
Vertessy 1992). The results are given in Figure H.1.
10000
Asphalt Stiffness (MPa)
1000
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Asphalt Temperature (Deg. C)
Source: Jameson, Sharp, Vertessy 1992
Figure H. 1: Variation in back-calculated moduli with temperature based on analysis

of Mulgrave ALF trial data
Based on the Figure H. 1 values, and assuming the asphalt moduli asymptote to about 1000 MPa
for temperature exceeding 40°C, the moduli given in Table H.1 were adopted in the development
of the Austroads mechanistic overlay design procedures (Potter et al. 1994).
Using the relative moduli in Table H. 1, eqn (H.1) was derived using regression analysis.
Austroads 2008
— 3.87 —
Figure H. 2 compares the temperature correction adjustment obtained using eqn (H.1) with
temperature adjustment factors obtained using the Shell nomograph for: PI = –0.7, T800pen = 58,
and loading times of 0.1 seconds (10 km/h), 0.0167 seconds (60 km/h) and 0.00833 seconds (120
km/h).
It is apparent that the 2004 Austroads Guide relationship is similar to that obtained using the Shell
nomographs for other than low traffic speeds.
Table H. 1: Etimated asphalt moduli used to develop

Austroads overlay design procedures
Asphalt temperature (°C) Asphalt moduli (MPa) Moduli relative to 25°C
12.5 7400 2.56
15.0 6350 2.20
17.5 5300 1.83
20.0 4420 1.53
22.5 3550 1.23
25 2890 1.00
27.5 2225 0.77
30.0 1850 0.64
32.5 1475 0.51
35.0 1310 0.45
37.5 1150 0.40
42.5 1000 0.35
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
Moduli relative to moduli at 25C
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
15 20 25 30 35 40
Asphalt temperature (C)
Shell 60km/h Shell 10km/h Austroads 2001 Shell 120km/h
Figure H. 2: Comparison of variations of asphalt moduli with temperature
Austroads 2008
— 3.88 —
REFERENCES
Jameson, GW, Sharp, KG & Vertessy NJ 1992, Full-depth pavement fatigue under accelerated loading: The
Mulgrave (Victoria) ALF Trial, 1989/1991, Research Report ARR No. 224, ARRB Transport Research,
Vermont South, Vic.
Potter, DW, Jameson, GW, Vuong, BT, Moffatt, MA, Yeo, R, Makarov, A & Armstrong, PW 1994, The
development of the Australian mechanistic approach to overlay design. Australian Road Research
Board Ltd (ARRB) Conference, 17th, 1994, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, vol.17, no.2, pp. 265-
97.
Austroads 2008
— 3.89 —
APPENDIX I DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIP TO

ADJUST ITT MODULUS FROM TEST
SPECIMEN AIR VOIDS TO IN-SERVICE AIR
VOIDS
As the air voids of mixes tested in the ITT test may be different from the characteristics of the
pavement in-service, it was necessary in the Austroads Guide to adjust the measured ITT modulus
to values applicable to in-service voids.
Oliver et al. (1995) reported the variation in ITT moduli with air voids of two Class 320 dense-
graded asphalt mixes.
Using the variation in the average ITT modulus with air voids, the following equation was obtained:
Modulus at in − service air voids (21 - AVIn-Service ) I.1

=
Modulus at test air voids (21 − AVtest )
Eqn (I.1) is plotted in Figure I. 1 for test air voids of 5%, together with the adjustment equation
provided in VicRoads Technical Bulletin No. 37 (1993). The TB 37 relationship was obtained by
regression analysis of moduli calculated using the Shell nomographs. It is apparent there is
reasonable agreement between the two methods provided that the test air voids are within 2-3% of
the in-service air voids.
1.3
Modulus at In Service AV / Modulus at Test AV
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
In Service Air Voids (%)
Oliver et al 1995 VicRoads TB 37
Figure I. 1: Comparison of variations of asphalt moduli with air voids
Austroads 2008
— 3.90 —
REFERENCES
Oliver, JWH, Alderson, AJ, Tredrea, PF & Karim, MR 1995, Results of the laboratory program associated
with the ALF asphalt deformation trial, Research Report no. ARR 272, ARRB Transport Research,
Vermont South, Vic
VicRoads 1993, VicRoads guide to pavement design, Technical Bulletin 37, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Austroads 2008
— 3.91 —
APPENDIX J DEVELOPMENT OF PRESUMPTIVE

TRAFFIC LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS
As discussed in Section 4.4.2 of this report, the traffic load distribution (TLD) data originally
obtained by Koniditsiotis (1996) was analysed to obtain presumptive TLDs for the draft 2001
Guide. This Appendix summarises the procedure used to derive the presumptive TLD in the 2004
Guide.
Given the limited resources available for this additional development work, the data was analysed
to only assess whether presumptive TLDs for each road functional class were appropriate rather
than repeating the more detailed clustering analysis previously undertaken by Koniditsiotis (1998).
To assess the consistency of the TLDs of each functional class, the calculated Standard Axle
Repetitions of cemented materials fatigue damage (SARc) per axle group (AG) were calculated
and compared. For each Road Functional Class the frequency of occurrence of SARc/AG and
various statistical parameters are plotted in Figures J.1-J.6 and summarised in Table J. 1.
Table J. 1: Comparison of statistics of traffic load distributions

of various road classes
Road Number of Mean percentage of axle group type Mean and 95%
functional sites1 Confidence limits
Single axle single Single axle dual Tandem axle Triaxle
class of SARc/AG
wheel wheels
1 45 33.5 7.8 33.1 25.0 5.5 ± 1.1
2 29 35.5 12.6 30.3 20.4 7.2 ± 2.0
3 4 36.0 10.5 30.1 22.5 8.5 ± 8.5
6 18 39.1 22.7 24.3 12.2 20.9 ± 10.0
7 11 38.3 26.7 23.6 8.7 53.1 ± 45.3
7 (reduced) 5 34.1 18.2 31.7 12.4 11.8 ± 6.7
8 3 49.1 45.9 4.4 0.0 4.4 ± 6.4
1. Number of sites after deletion of outliers
Comparing the spread of SAR/AG for each road functional class it was observed that:
As expected, the three urban road classes (Classes 6, 7 and 8) had lower percentages of
tandem and triaxle groups and a higher percentage of dual axles with dual wheels than the
rural road classes. The Class 6 and 7 urban roads also had higher SARc/AG than the rural
road distributions.
The Class 7 SARc/AG results were highly variable considering the sample size and were
unexpectedly high compared to the more heavily-trafficked Class 6 urban roads.
As expected, Class 8 roads – their main function being to provide access to abutting property
– had very low percentages of tandem axles and triaxles and a significantly lower SARc/AG
than more heavily-trafficked urban roads.
As there was considerable overlap of the SARc/AG of the three rural road classes (Classes 1,
2 and 3), it was concluded that their results could be pooled to derive a presumptive ‘Rural’
TLD.
Austroads 2008
— 3.92 —
Class 1
12
ALL DATA EXCLUDING

10 OUTLIER
Mean
Mean = 6.0 Mean = 5.5
Std Dev = 4.9 Std Dev = 3.6
n = 46 n = 45
8 95% min = 4.5 95% min = 4.4
95% max = 7.4 95% max = 6.6
Frequency
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SARs/AG (Cemented Materials)
Figure J. 1: Frequency distribution for Class 1 roads
Class 2
12
ALL DATA Excluding Outliers

Mean = 15.1 Mean = 7.2
10 Std Dev = 28.2 Std Dev = 5.4
n = 32 n = 29
Mean
95% min = 4.9 95% min = 5.2

95% max = 25.2 95% max = 9.3
8
Frequency
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Austroads 2008
— 3.93 —
Class 3
2
All Data
Mean = 15.0
Std Dev = 15.4
n=5
Mean
95% min = 0
95% max = 34
Frequency
Excluding Outlier
Mean = 8.5
1 Std Dev = 5.7
n=4
95% min = 0
95% max = 17.6
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Class 6
3
ALL DATA EXCLUDING

OUTLIERS
Mean = 43.6
Std Dev = 80.9 Mean = 20.9
n = 20 Std Dev = 20.3
95% min = 5.8 n = 18
Mean
2 95% max = 81.5 95% min =10.8

95% max = 31.0
Frequency
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Austroads 2008
— 3.94 —
Class 7
3
ALL DATA
Mean = 53.1
Std Dev = 65.6
Mean
n = 11
95% min = 7.9
95% max = 98.4
2
Frequency
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Figure J. 5: Frequency distribution for Class 7roads
Class 8
2
All Data Excluding Outlier

Mean = 12.7 Mean = 4.4
Std Dev = 16.8 Std Dev = 2.6
Mean
n=4 n= 3
t =3.18 t =4.3
95% min = 0 95% min = 0
95% max = 39.5 95% max = 10.8
Frequency
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Austroads 2008
— 3.95 —
These results were discussed at the February 2001 RG meeting. The results for the Class 7 roads
were reviewed and it was decided to delete the results of six Class 7 Victorian sites from the
analysis. The 2001 Guide RG requested the revised data be analysed to develop presumptive
TLDs.
As the remaining five Class 7 sites only represented data from two roads, the data was considered
insufficient to recommend a separate TLD for Class 7 roads. Hence, the Class 6 and Class 7
(reduced set) data was pooled. For each TLD, the percentage occurrence of each axle group type
and each axle group load was calculated. The average of these percentages for all Class 6 roads
and the Class 7 reduced data set was then calculated. The resulting ‘Urban’ TLD is given in Table
J. 2. As mentioned above, considerable overlap of the distributions of SARc/AG was observed for
the three rural road classes (Classes 1, 2 and 3). Hence the results were pooled to derive a
presumptive ‘Rural’ TLD (Table J. 3).
Generally Class 8 roads would have design traffic loading less than 105 ESA. These roads are
designed in accordance with A Guide to the Design of New Pavements for Light Traffic (APRG 21)
rather than the Austroads Pavement Design Guide. The average Class 8 TLD is given in
Table J. 4.
Based on this analysis it was decided that:
Table J. 2 be included in the draft 2001 Guide as the presumptive of ‘urban’ traffic load
distribution; and
Table J. 3 be included in the draft 2001 Guide as the presumptive of ‘rural’ traffic load
distribution.
The 2004 RG re-examined the data at the December 2002 meeting. The results for the Class 7
roads were reviewed and it was decided to delete the results from the calculation of the
presumptive axle distribution due to the very limited amount of data on which they were based.
Hence only the Class 6 data was used to generate the presumptive urban distribution. For each
TLD the percentage occurrence of each axle group type and each axle group load was calculated.
The average of these percentages for all Class 6 roads was then calculated. The resulting ‘Urban’
TLD is given in Table J. 5.
In terms of the Table J. 3 presumptive ‘Rural’ distribution, some 2004 RG members were
concerned that the distribution resulted in less damage in fatigue of cemented materials and
concrete pavements than Table J. 5 presumptive ‘Urban’ TLD. This was due to the small number
of very high single axle single tyre axle loads in the ‘Urban’ TLD. Consequently in June 2003, RTA
NSW used their WIM data on rural roads to produce a presumptive ‘Rural’ TLD (Table J. 6) more
consistent with the presumptive (Table J. 5).
Table J. 5 and Table J. 6 were adopted in the 2004 Austroads Pavement Design Guide.
Austroads 2008
— 3.96 —
Table J. 2: Presumptive traffic load distribution for rural road

Axle Group Axle Group Load
Load SAST SADT TAST TADT TRDT
(kN) % % % % %
10 0.08 1.25 0.01 0.15 0.03

20 3.97 7.30 0.09 0.56 0.15 NHVAGs = 2.9
30 8.20 17.41 0.29 0.97 0.52
40 11.34 18.44 0.97 1.97 1.57
50 31.51 17.80 4.05 3.73 3.30
60 33.87 12.70 10.30 4.98 3.83
70 9.85 9.57 15.68 5.66 4.32
80 1.10 6.78 15.92 5.85 4.41 Material Type
90 0.08 4.45 14.34 5.87 4.16 Component SARs/ AG
100 0.01 2.74 15.11 6.53 4.15
110 0.96 10.94 6.38 3.43 Granular
120 0.37 6.29 6.89 3.34 Pavements
130 0.15 3.20 7.44 3.52 (4th Power) 1.0
140 0.05 1.71 8.31 3.92
150 0.01 0.62 10.37 4.97 Asphalt 1.2
160 0.00 0.22 9.13 5.23 (5th Power)
170 0.10 7.05 6.26
180 0.09 4.18 7.44 Subgrade 1.7
190 0.05 2.08 8.40 (7th Power)
200 0.03 1.07 9.00
210 0.44 6.63 Cemented mater 7.1
220 0.21 4.76 (12th Power)
230 0.11 2.95
240 0.05 1.66
250 0.03 0.97
260 0.01 0.44
270 0.00 0.24
280 0.00 0.13
290 0.00 0.08
300 0.07
310 0.05
320 0.02
330 0.02
340 0.01
350 0.00
360 0.00
370 0.00
380
390
400
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Proportion of 0.344 0.098 0.007 0.320 0.230

Each Axle Group
Austroads 2008
— 3.97 —
Table J. 3: Presumptive traffic load distribution for urban roads
Axle Group Axle Group Type

Load
(kN) SAST SADT TAST TADT TRDT
% % % % %
10 0.26 2.18 0.10 0.10 0.00
20 13.53 10.23 0.96 0.68 0.11
30 18.02 20.67 1.26 1.41 0.25 NHVAGs = 2.6
40 19.99 17.99 1.33 3.76 1.04
50 25.74 13.42 4.52 7.73 4.92
60 17.11 8.30 13.66 10.32 9.44
70 4.37 6.27 17.95 10.22 9.79
80 0.77 7.68 17.36 8.56 8.62 Material Type
90 0.12 6.37 13.23 6.76 6.53 Component SARs/ AG
100 0.06 3.58 9.92 5.34 4.35
110 0.01 1.68 9.77 4.38 3.12 Granular
120 0.01 0.92 4.66 4.15 2.70 Pavements
130 0.01 0.44 2.33 4.29 2.47 (4th Power) 0.80
140 0.01 0.19 1.19 4.71 2.65
150 0.05 0.87 6.15 3.09 Asphalt 0.96
160 0.02 0.33 5.71 3.42 (5th Power)
170 0.00 0.31 4.97 3.81
180 0.01 0.13 3.40 4.94 Subgrade 1.7
190 0.00 0.10 2.64 6.24 (7th Power)
200 0.03 1.70 7.22
210 1.19 5.24 Cemented materials 19
220 0.83 3.70 (12th Power)
230 0.42 2.02
240 0.21 1.45
250 0.16 0.90
260 0.08 0.60
270 0.08 0.62
280 0.01 0.31
290 0.01 0.20
300 0.00 0.16
310 0.01 0.04
320 0.00 0.03
330 0.03
340 0.02
350 0.00
360 0.00
370 0.00
380 0.00
390
400
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Proportion of 0.380 0.217 0.022 0.259 0.122

Each Axle Group
Austroads 2008
— 3.98 —
Table J. 4: Representative distribution of loads on axle groups for use on

lightly-trafficked urban roads
p g y
Load
(kN) SAST SADT TADT TRDT
% % % %
10 14.90 20.47 0.00 0.00
20 31.46 24.74 1.460 0.00
30 17.82 9.148 8.957 4.790
40 10.95 7.730 4.380 0.00
50 5.115 6.623 1.202 0.00
60 12.44 8.403 1.804 0.00 NHVAGs = 2.0
70 5.515 3.022 1.202 0.00
80 1.319 4.191 7.644 0.00 ESA/HVAG = 0.6
90 0.2903 5.508 11.77 4.790
100 0.1452 4.177 12.11 9.481 ESA/HV = 1.2
110 0.0484 3.080 12.37 0.00
120 2.200 14.69 4.790
130 0.5231 5.926 14.27 Damage Type SARs/ ESA
140 0.1916 4.724 18.96
150 1.460 9.481 Asphalt Fatigue 1.3
160 1.804 4.790 (5th Power)
170 0.8589 0.00
180 1.460 0.00 Rutting and Shape Loss 2.3
190 2.663 0.00 (7th Power)
200 1.202 9.481
210 0.6012 0.00 Cemented Materials 21
220 1.202 0.00 Fatigue (12th Power)
230 0.0000 4.790
240 0.2577 0.00
250 0.2577 0.00
260 0.00
270 4.790
280 0.00
290 4.790
300 0.00
310 0.00
320 4.790
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Proportion of 0.4909 0.4594 0.0445 0.0028

Each Axle Group
Austroads 2008
— 3.99 —
Table J. 5: Representative distribution of loads on axle groups for use on

urban roads

Load
(kN) SAST SADT TAST TADT TRDT
% % % % %
10 0.27 3.47 0.03 0.15 0.01
20 7.83 8.70 0.24 0.58 0.13
30 15.46 23.46 0.28 0.62 0.33
40 15.71 21.93 0.58 1.98 1.32
50 29.94 16.80 2.89 6.50 4.17
60 23.29 9.61 10.27 9.51 7.42 NHVAGs = 2.5
70 6.50 6.50 16.81 10.94 9.78
80 0.79 4.62 16.61 9.77 8.34 ESA/HVAG = 0.7
90 0.11 2.97 15.95 7.61 6.15
100 0.04 1.39 14.42 7.24 5.03 ESA/HV = 1.8
110 0.02 0.41 9.77 6.27 3.70
120 0.02 0.12 5.90 5.95 3.30
130 0.02 0.02 2.94 5.88 3.15 Damage Type SARs/ ESA
140 1.54 6.53 3.36
150 0.84 8.03 4.01 Asphalt Fatigue 1.1
160 0.43 5.72 4.11 (5th Power)
170 0.23 3.55 4.82
180 0.14 1.86 6.10 Rutting and Shape Loss 1.6
190 0.07 0.85 7.73 (7th Power)
200 0.06 0.33 8.43
230 0.02 0.78
240 0.25
250 0.09
260 0.01
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Proportion of 0.393 0.191 0.009 0.259 0.148

Each Axle Group
Austroads 2008
— 3.100 —
Table J. 6: Representative distribution of loads on axle groups for use on rural roads
p
Axle Group Axle Group Load
Load SAST SADT TAST TADT TRDT
(kN) % % % % %
10 0.50 3.03 0.01 0.38 0.01
20 6.74 4.97 0.08 0.57 0.12
30 9.24 6.86 1.29 2.36 1.88
40 15.30 8.48 1.99 4.01 3.86
50 28.74 10.23 5.12 4.26 5.21 NHVAGs = 2.8
60 32.19 14.16 11.48 5.17 4.36
70 5.65 13.58 15.24 4.87 4.08 ESA/HVAG = 0.9
80 1.21 13.29 16.19 4.85 3.84
90 0.25 11.17 14.59 5.30 3.79 ESA/HV = 2.5
100 0.08 7.84 15.37 6.24 3.84
110 0.06 4.13 11.13 9.31 4.12
120 0.03 2.00 6.40 9.17 3.57 Damage Type SARs/ ESA
130 0.18 0.63 10.55 6.69
140 0.07 0.22 12.92 7.89 Asphalt Fatigue 1.1
150 0.10 10.35 8.36 (5th Power)
160 0.09 3.77 8.13
170 0.05 2.57 7.38 Rutting and Shape Loss 1.6
180 0.02 1.60 6.08 (7th Power)
190 0.87 4.98
220 0.13 1.93
230 0.06 1.14
240 0.03 0.63
250 0.35
260 0.22
270 0.13
280 0.08
290 0.04
300 0.03
310 0.01
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
Total 99.99 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00
Proportion of 0.344 0.098 0.007 0.320 0.231

Each Axle Group
Austroads 2008
— 3.101 —
Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2 Pavement Structural Design Chapter 4

Chapter 4: 2008 Guide Procedures for Design of Rigid Pavements
George Vorobieff
December 2003
SUMMARY
This report records the work undertaken in the revision of Chapter 9 (Design of New Rigid
Pavements) of the 1992 edition of Pavement Design – A Guide to the Structural Design of Road
Pavements, published by Austroads in 1992.
The 2004 revision of Chapter 9 of the Guide includes improvements to the thickness design
procedures based on ten years of concrete pavement design and construction experience in
Australia, primarily in NSW.
The Guide provides guidance on the structural design of pavements, specifically the establishment
of appropriate thicknesses of the pavement layers to withstand the design traffic at a specified
project design reliability using pavement materials which meet specified mechanical properties.
The information in Chapter 9 of the 2004 edition of the Guide is for new pavements with a traffic
volume exceeding 1 million heavy vehicle axle groups (HVAG). The revision to this Chapter of the
Guide also took account, where appropriate, of revisions to other Chapters of the Guide.
No significant technical changes were made to the 2004 Guide procedures during the publication
of the Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2 Pavement Structural Design in 2008.
Austroads 2008
— 4.i —
CONTENTS
1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................ 1
2 PAVEMENT TYPES ....................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Base Concrete ............................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Subbase Types ............................................................................................................ 4
3 THICKNESS DETERMINATION .................................................................................... 5
3.1 Subgrade and Subbase Stiffness ................................................................................... 5
3.2 Design Traffic ............................................................................................................ 5
3.3 Concrete Shoulders ........................................................................................................ 7
3.4 Load Safety Factors........................................................................................................ 7
4 BASE THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURE ................................................................. 8
4.1 General ............................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Dowel and Tie Bars ...................................................................................................... 11
5 REINFORCEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURES ............................................................. 12
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 13
Austroads 2008
— 4.ii —
TABLES
Table 3.1: Load safety factors (LSF) for rigid pavement types............................................ 7
Table 3.2: Recommended load safety factors (LSF) for roundabouts................................. 7
FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Typical longitudinal section of plain concrete pavement (PCP) ........................ 3
Figure 2.2: Typical longitudinal section of jointed reinforced concrete pavement
(JRCP) .............................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2.3: Typical longitudinal section of continuously reinforced concrete
pavement .......................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2.4: Typical cross-section of dowelled plain concrete pavement (PCP-D) .............. 3
Figure 3.1: A select material zone under the subbase assists in providing
uniformsupport to the pavement, especially in cut and fill transition areas....... 5
Figure 3.2: Concrete base thickness versus traffic volume for a PCP supported on a
150 mm lean mix concrete subbase with and without concrete shoulders ....... 6
Figure 3.3: Plan of the four most common heavy vehicle axle groups in Australia............. 6
Figure 3.4: Plan of the six heavy vehicle axle groups used in the Guide............................ 6
Figure 4.1: Allowable repetitions to failure for fatigue from SAST and SADT axle
group loads – the two vertical dashed lines represent the 65 kN limit for
each axle group for a LSF = 1.2 ....................................................................... 11
Austroads 2008
— 4.iii —
1 GENERAL
The 2004 revision of Chapter 9 of the Austroads Pavement Design Guide includes improvements
to the thickness design procedures based on ten years of concrete pavement design and
construction experience in Australia, primarily in NSW. The Guide provides guidance on the
structural design of pavements, specifically the establishment of appropriate thicknesses of the
pavement layers to withstand the design traffic at a specified project design reliability using
pavement materials which meet specified mechanical properties. The information in Chapter 9 of
the 2004 edition of the Guide is for new pavements with a traffic volume exceeding one million
heavy vehicle axle groups (HVAG). The revision to this Chapter of the Guide also took account,
where appropriate, of revisions to other Chapters of the Guide.
The Chapter in the Austroads Pavement Design Guide addressing the design of new rigid
pavements has traditionally dealt with thickness design but not design of structural detailing. The
Working Group updating Chapter 9 decided to ensure that the revision adopted a similar approach
to the Chapter in the Guide dealing with the design of flexible pavements. The revised Chapter
provides guidance on the:
minimum subbase type and thickness
thickness determination of the basic four pavement types
load safety factors according to pavement type and project reliability
minimum base thickness for increasing traffic volume
quantity of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement for CRCP
provision of tie bars in longitudinal joints
provision of dowels in dowelled transverse joints
requirements for base anchors.
For guidance on the structural detailing of joints and surface details the designer should seek
information from various technical publications, such as the Concrete Pavement Manual – Design
and Construction (RTA 1996), Concrete Roundabout Pavements – A Guide to their Design and
Construction (RTA 2003a), Treatment of Moisture in Cuttings (RTA 1999) and RTA Standard
drawings (RTA 2003b).
As detailed in this report, the major change to Chapter 9 was the replacement of the nomographs
and tables listing design coefficients with a series of algorithms so that the trial-and-error thickness
procedure can be carried out using a computer program or spreadsheet macros. This will enable
the designer to develop a more efficient design procedure and reduce the potential for human
errors associated with the use of the nomographs and coefficients.
Several terms were revised in this Chapter as follows:

‘commercial vehicle axle groups (CVAG)’ has been changed to ‘heavy vehicle axle groups
(HVAG)’
‘effective subgrade strength’ has been changed to ‘effective subgrade stiffness’
the term ‘wearing surface’ has been introduced to describe the use of thin layers of asphalt
above the concrete base
abbreviations for the heavy vehicle axle groups have been introduced.
Austroads 2008
— 4.1 —
No significant technical changes were made to the 2004 Guide procedures during the publication
of the Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology – Part 2: Pavement Structural Design in 2008.
For a full list of current pavement definitions refer to the Glossary of Terms (Standards Australia
2002).
Austroads 2008
— 4.2 —
2 PAVEMENT TYPES
2.1 Base Concrete
The Working Group considered that the information about various base types in the 1992 Guide
was too brief if designers were to clearly distinguish between the appropriate base types. This has
been improved without detailing a comprehensive list of advantages and disadvantages for each
type, and Figure 2.2 to Figure 2.3 show basic details of the three base types outlined in the Guide.
Whilst not specifically in the current Guide,
Figure 2.4 shows a PCP with dowelled joints. More detailed information about the use of the four
base types can be found in the various road authority manuals and technical directions.
Induced &
3.5 to 4.5 m
sealed joints
Note: Steel fibre reinforced concrete is sometimes used for PCP
Figure 2.1: Typical longitudinal section of plain concrete pavement (PCP)
Steel mesh Dowels Sawn &

8 to 15m sealed
joints
Figure 2.2: Typical longitudinal section of jointed reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP)
0.5 to 1.5 m
Steel bars
Figure 2.3: Typical longitudinal section of continuously reinforced concrete pavement
Dowels Induced &

up to 5 m
sealed joints
Note: Steel fibre reinforced concrete is sometimes used for PCP-D
Figure 2.4: Typical cross-section of dowelled plain concrete pavement (PCP-D)
Austroads 2008
— 4.3 —
2.2 Subbase Types

The 2004 edition of the Guide emphasises the use of lean mix concrete (LMC) subbases and this
recommendation is detailed in Section 9.1 of the Guide. However, the text in the Guide does not
preclude the use of other types of subbases.
The RTA NSW experience with the use of LMC subbase has been very successful at preventing
erosion distress at the subbase level to the extent that little to no erosion distress has been
detected for concrete pavements with this type of subbase.
In addition, as the experience in NSW has shown that the construction of subbase layers 100 mm
thick has been difficult to achieve by contractors, the Working Group considered that the minimum
subbase thickness should be 125 mm for LMC and bound materials. This is now reflected in
Table 9.1 and Figure 9.1 of the Guide.
Austroads 2008
— 4.4 —
3 THICKNESS DETERMINATION
3.1 Subgrade and Subbase Stiffness
The design thickness of the base is a function of the traffic loading, material properties and the
cumulative stiffness of the subbase and subgrade. Many concrete pavement failures have been
attributed to uneven support conditions that may occur over large underground services, culverts
or at the transition of the cut and fill zones. Hence, the text in this section draws the designer’s
attention to the fact that the concrete base layer should be longitudinally and laterally uniformly
supported by the subbase and subgrade layers.
At cut and fill transitions with predominantly rock at the cut zone, constructing a pavement onto the
rock is a sound approach and it will provide substantial support to the traffic loading.
Unfortunately, the strong support offered by rock formations cannot be carried though the fill region
and it makes sense that the selected material from the cut zone is used to form a continuous
‘bedding’ for the concrete subbase as shown in Figure 3.1. This selected material may be
stabilised with lime or cement to assist with the long-term stability of the material and ensure a
strong working platform for the delivery of the concrete to the concrete slipformer.
Rock
Select material
Figure 3.1: A select material zone under the subbase assists in providing uniformsupport to the pavement,
especially in cut and fill transition areas
This section of the Chapter emphasises the need for long-term uniform and volumetric stable
material12 near the top of the subgrade. Where several subgrade layers are used to achieve this
condition, Chapter 5 provides some guidance on how the designer could derived the design
subgrade strength at the top of the subgrade. It is known from experience that, in order to
minimise the impact of vertical movement on the subbase from potentially expansive subgrades, a
minimum layer thickness of 600 mm is required for the select material zone.
3.2 Design Traffic

It is well known that the thickness of concrete pavements is sensitive to traffic loading. A reduction
of 10 mm in thickness can represent some 24 million HVAGs of pavement traffic life, as shown in
Figure 3.2.
With Governments coming under increasing pressure from various industry groups to increase the
legal axle load limits, the estimation of traffic volume and loading over the next ten to forty years
has become increasingly difficult for designers. The new representative statistical data of traffic
loading in Chapter 7 of the Guide represents recent information obtained from weigh-in-motion
(WIM) sites and replaces the previous rural and urban traffic distribution tables generated in the
late 1970s (refer to Appendix I of the 1992 edition). This data should provide more reliable
estimates of traffic loading distribution for designers.
12
A volumetric stable material may be defined as a material which will not significantly change volume, e.g. swell or
shrink with changes in moisture content.
Austroads 2008
— 4.5 —
330
310
Base Thickness (mm)

290 without shoulder
270
250
230
with shoulder
210
190
170
150
1.0E+06 2.1E+07 4.1E+07 6.1E+07 8.1E+07
HVAGs
Figure 3.2: Concrete base thickness versus traffic volume for a PCP supported on a 150 mm lean mix concrete subbase
with and without concrete shoulders
The current Guide also introduces two new axle groups and a revision to the abbreviations used to
describe the heavy vehicle axle groups, as shown in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4.
Single axle Single axle Dual axles Three axles

Single wheels Dual wheels Dual wheels Dual wheels
(SS) (SD) Tandem Triaxle
(TAD) (TRD)
Figure 3.3: Plan of the four most common heavy vehicle axle groups in Australia
Single axle Single axle Two axles Two axles

Single wheels Dual wheels Single wheels Dual wheels
(SAST) (SADT) (TAST) Tandem
(TADT)
Three axles Four axles
Dual wheels Dual wheels
Triaxle Quad
(TRDT) (QADT)
Figure 3.4: Plan of the six heavy vehicle axle groups used in the Guide
Austroads 2008
— 4.6 —
3.3 Concrete Shoulders

The structural definition of concrete shoulders was reviewed by the Working Group and no new
material was found which would justify changing the requirements for concrete shoulders. US
studies (e.g. Heinrichs et al. 1988) confirmed Australian experience that the provision of concrete
shoulders resulted in a significant improvement in the performance of the concrete pavement.
It is noted in the Guide that the designer should also be aware that the width of the concrete
shoulder should take into consideration safety requirements to allow drivers to park clear of the
fast-moving traffic in the outer lanes of freeways.
3.4 Load Safety Factors

One of the criticisms of the definition of load safety factors (LSF) given in the 1992 Guide was the
loose description assigned to the factors. The Working Group considered that traffic volume would
also assist the designer to select an appropriate LSF. For instance, LSF = 1.2 may be used for
major freeways and other multi-lane projects carrying uninterrupted flows of high volumes of heavy
vehicles (i.e. greater than 5 x 107 HVAGs) and LSF = 1.1 may be used for freeways, highways and
arterial road projects with moderate volumes of heavy vehicles (i.e. greater than 1 x 106 HVAGs).
The purpose of the introduction of project reliability in Chapter 2 of the Guide was to improve the
designation of traffic safety factors for both flexible and rigid pavements. For the design of flexible
pavements the material fatigue life is adjusted according to the assigned project design reliability
(refer to Table 2.1 of the Guide) whereas, for rigid pavements, the assigned project design
reliability assigns a load safety factor according to pavement type (Table 3.1). This approach
addresses the criticisms levelled at the 1992 Guide and provides the designer with the ability to
determine equivalent flexible or rigid pavement configurations for a given project design reliability.
Table 3.1: Load safety factors (LSF) for rigid pavement types
Pavement type Project design reliability

80% 85% 90% 95% 97.5%
PCP 1.15 1.15 1.20 1.30 1.35
Dowelled & CRCP 1.05 1.05 1.10 1.20 1.25
In addition, the Chapter provides LSF values for roundabouts based on the work by Ayton (RTA
2003a) and these are listed in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Recommended load safety factors (LSF) for roundabouts

LSF selected for Adjusted LSF for
design roundabouts
1.0 1.3
1.1 1.4
1.2 1.5
Austroads 2008
— 4.7 —
4 BASE THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURE

4.1 General
The overall design procedure in the 2004 Guide fundamentally follows the approach adopted in the
1992 edition of the Guide. However, the following changes have been made:
The nomographs for the determination of the allowable load repetitions have been replaced
by algorithms as discussed earlier
The ‘equivalent stress’ and ‘erosion factor’ tables have been replaced with algorithms
Average concrete strength has been adjusted to characteristic concrete strength
Two new axle groups – tandem axle with single wheels and quad axles with dual wheels –
have been introduced
The recommended minimum base thickness has been increased.
Vorobieff (1996) published the algorithms that formed the nomographs as Figures 9.4 to 9.6 in the
1992 edition of the Guide. These algorithms were metric conversions from equations presented by
Packard and Tayabji (1985) and correspondence with the Portland Cement Association (Packard,
1994).
The fatigue distress equation based on the determination of the allowable load repetitions (Nf) for a
given axle load is:
⎡ 0.9719 − S r ⎤
log (Nf) = ⎢ ⎥ when Sr > 0.55 1
⎣ 0.0828 ⎦
3.268
⎡ 4.258 ⎤
Nf = ⎢ ⎥ when 0.45 ≤ Sr ≤ 0.55 2
⎣ S r − 0.4325 ⎦
Where ⎡ P.L SF ⎤
0.94
Se
Sr = ⎢ ⎥ 3
0.944f' cf ⎣ 4.45F1 ⎦
Se = equivalent stress (MPa)

f’cf = design characteristic flexural strength (MPa)
P = axle group load (kN)
LSF = load safety factor
F1 = load adjustment due to axle group
= 9 for single axle with single wheel (referred to as SAST axle group)
= 18 for single axle with dual wheel (referred to as SADT axle group)
= 18 for tandem axle with single wheel (referred to as TAST axle group)
= 36 for tandem axle with dual wheel (referred to as TADT axle group)
= 54 for triaxle with dual wheel (referred to as TRDT axle group)
= 72 for quad axle with dual wheel (referred to as QADT axle group).
Austroads 2008
— 4.8 —
Equations 1 and 2, being dimensionless, required no conversion from imperial to metric

units. However, the stress ratio was derived from the following equation:
0.94
⎛ Se ⎞ ⎛ P ⎞
Sr = ⎜ ⎟ x ⎜ ⎟ 4
⎝ Mr ⎠ ⎝ 18 ⎠
Where
Mr = modulus of rupture of the concrete base slab
P = axle load (kips).
In Equation 4, both parts of the right-hand side of the equation are dimensionless if the correct
imperial or metric units are input. The value 18 for the denominator is for single axle groups, and
this becomes 36 for tandem axle groups. Therefore, Vorobieff modified Equation 4 to Equation 3
using the following changes:
Mr became the design characteristic flexural strength (f’cf) and 0.944 was included to allow for
the difference between the average and characteristic flexural strength specified in Australia
and the difference between the PCA’s assumption in the design model and Australian
experience of concrete strength gain beyond 28-days.
The value of 18 was replaced by F1 to allow various axle groups to be included in the
equation.
LSF was included to allow for the load safety factors in the calculations.
A value of 4.45 was used to convert kips to kN and allow for four wheels for the single axle
group in Equation 4.
F1 values for TAST and QADT were determined through numerical analysis by comparing
stresses and cumulative distress for similar axle configurations.
Whilst it is obvious, the Guide notes that values of Nf are infinite or commonly referred to as
unlimited when Sr is less than 0.45.
In terms of the erosion distress mode, the work by Packard and Tayabji (1985) found that the
allowable load repetitions (Ne) for a given axle load were:
0.103
⎡⎛ P.L ⎞ 2 10 F3 ⎤
log (F2 Ne) = 14.524 - 6.777 ⎢⎜⎜ SF
⎟⎟ − 9.0 ⎥ 5
⎢⎣⎝ 4.45F1 ⎠ 41.354 ⎥⎦
Where P, LSF and F1 are similar to previous definitions with the exception of F1 for QUAD axle
groups
F2 = adjustment for slab edge effects
= 0.06 for base with no shoulder
= 0.94 for base with shoulder; and
F3 = erosion factor.
Austroads 2008
— 4.9 —
Only one area of Equation 5 required conversion from imperial to metric units, namely the P2
section. As noted for the fatigue distress equations, Vorobieff introduced the load safety factor and
the conversion from kips to kN. In using Equation 5 the value derived in the square brackets
([ … ]) must be greater than zero to ensure that a real number (i.e. versus imaginary number) is
derived. Therefore, it is noted in the Guide that values less than zero (or where the deflection of
the base over the transverse joint is low) there are unlimited allowable repetitions for the axle load
within the axle load group.
Whilst these algorithms provided some acceleration in the design calculations they still relied on
the numerous equivalent stresses and erosion factors in Tables 9.2 and 9.3 of the 1992 Guide. In
1997, ARRB Transport Research (Moffatt 1997) was commissioned to replace the equivalent
stress and erosion factors in Tables 9.2 and 9.3 to make way for the use of algorithms in the
current Guide. At first glance the algorithm selected by the researchers looks complex. However,
it was derived after a series of trials with various alternatives to ensure that the difference between
the coefficients in the previous Tables did not exceed the values generated by the algorithm
by 5%.
The Austroads Working Group reviewed the application of the concrete flexural strength in the use
of the tables in the 1992 Guide and the use of the algorithms. It was concluded that the original
nomographs used required the designer to use the average concrete flexural strength rather than
the characteristic concrete strength (PCA 1984). Due to the practice in Australia and New Zealand
of specifying the characteristic concrete strength, the Working Group therefore made an allowance
of 15% in the fatigue distress algorithm. This adjustment appears within the denominator of 0.944
in the definition of Sr in Equation 9.2 of the Guide.
The 2004 Guide also introduces two new axle groups and these are noted in the revisions in the
traffic Chapter. Neither the existing guide nor the PCA design method provide any guidance on the
selection of an F1 value (see Equation 3) for the new axle groups, and the Working Group had little
research data available to it to enable new coefficients for the axle groups to be generated.
Therefore, a conservative approach was taken to the selection of the coefficients for the axle
groups based on experience with using the design procedure.
Over the last ten years, experience has shown that heavy-duty pavements in Australia are being
subject to numerous overloaded trucks with axle loads exceeding the legal limit. Unusual forms of
pavement distress are also being observed that appear to be mainly related to environmental
loading. Whilst the Working Group was satisfied with the thickness design model, there have been
instances where relatively thin plain concrete pavements have been built using this model with
heavy traffic loading – defined by the RTA NSW as HVAG exceeding 1 x 107 during the first 20
years of operation (also refer to Section 3.4). As the thickness design procedure does not directly
consider environmental loading parameters, and it would be inappropriate to increase the load
safety factor, the Working Group developed, using their experience, a series of recommended
minimum design base thicknesses for various base types, and for specific ranges of traffic volumes
as listed in Table 9.7 of the Guide.
One of the interesting issues related to the use of the algorithms in the 1992 Guide was the
implication of the 65 kN load per tyre limit set in Table 9.1 (Step 10). Numerous attempts by the
author to correspond with the author of the PCA (1984) method failed to identify why such a limit
existed. It is noted that, with some WIM data, the load per tyre value can be exceeded for single
axle load groups, especially when high LSF (i.e. > 1.2) values are used.
Austroads 2008
— 4.10 —
Upon examination of the behaviour of the curves, as shown in Figure 4.1, the algorithms do not
‘misbehave’ above 65 kN. As raising or eliminating the limit was not addressed by the Working
Group, it was decided to continue to caution designers when (4.5PLsf/F1) exceeded 65 kN. It is
emphasised that the design procedure was prepared assuming normal vehicular traffic loadings on
multi-lane roads. It is not prudent, therefore, to use the design procedure for industrial pavements
where the spacing between wheels and axles, and axle loads, are typically much higher.
1.0E+10
Number of Allowable
SAST SADT
Repetitions
1.0E+00
0 100 200 300 400
Axle Group
d
Figure 4.1: Allowable repetitions to failure for fatigue from SAST and SADT axle group loads – the two vertical dashed
lines represent the 65 kN limit for each axle group for a LSF = 1.2
4.2 Dowel and Tie Bars

The determination of the size and quantity of dowel and tie bar has not changed in the revision to
the Chapter.
Australian reinforcing bar companies have new high strength steels (i.e. 500 MPa) and most of the
work and experience of using dowels and tie bars is based on the traditional 400Y grade bar. No
research could be located by the Working Group which showed that the increase in yield strength
improved tie bar performance or crack spacing generation for CRCP. One of the key design
elements of tie bars is their pull-out strength, and should this be a weak link and the tie bar fails in
its operation, the pavement either side of the contraction joint is likely to shows signs of fatigue
distress.
Austroads 2008
— 4.11 —
5 REINFORCEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURES

Only minor changes to the design procedures have been made in the 2004 Guide. A summary of
these changes follows:
a clearer definition of L in Equation 9.5 of the Guide as the distance to untied joints or edges
of the base
an update of the reference for the new Australian Standard for reinforcing bars
updated guidance on the indicative values of the coefficient of friction based on current
construction practices using various curing compounds and debonding materials (Ayton and
Haber 1997)
increase in the minimum reinforcement requirement for CRC from 0.60 to 0.65 based on
experience with regard to the desired crack spacing
change in the optimum crack spacing to between 0.5 to 2.5 m to accommodate the higher
concrete strengths specified and the provision of the interlayer between base and subbase.
As noted in the previous section, the equations presented in the Guide were modelled against a
quantitative assessment of the performance of these pavements subjected to environment and
traffic loadings. The use of high strength steel may result in less longitudinal bars per metre width
of pavement, but may not produce a suitable crack pattern conducive to long-term performance.
Austroads 2008
— 4.12 —
REFERENCES
Austroads 2004, Pavement design: a guide to the structural design of road pavements, AP-G17/04,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Ayton, GP & Haber, EW 1997, 'Curing and interlayer debonding', International Purdue conference on
concrete pavement design and materials for high performance, 6th, 1997, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA,
Purdue University, USA ,pp.63-86.
Heinrichs, K et al. 1988, Rigid pavement design and analysis, FHWA-RD-88-068, Federal Highway
Administration, USA.
Moffatt, MA 1997, 'Regression equations for determination of equivalent stresses and erosion factors for rigid
pavement design', report no. RE7110, Austroads Pavement Research Group.
NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
Packard, R 1994, ‘Private communication to George Vorobieff, Cement & Concrete Association of Australia’,
14 June 1994.
Packard, R & Tayabji, S 1985, 'New PCA thickness design procedure for concrete highway and street
pavements', International conference on concrete pavement design and rehabilitation, 3rd, 1985,
Purdue University, USA.
Portland Cement Association 1984, Thickness design for concrete highway and street pavements, EBA
209.01P, PCA, USA.
RTA NSW 1996, Concrete pavement manual: design and construction (edition 2), Roads and Traffic
Authority, Milsons Point, NSW.
RTA NSW 1999, Treatment of moisture in cuttings, RTA Technical Direction 99/7, Roads and Traffic
Authority, Sydney, NSW.
RTA NSW 2003a, Concrete roundabout pavements: a guide to their design and construction (edition 3),
Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW.
RTA NSW 2003b, Standard drawings list, vol.1: continuously reinforced concrete pavements (Drawing
MD.R84.CC.A), vol.2: plain concrete pavements (Drawing MD.R83.CP.A), vol.3: jointed reinforced
concrete pavements (Drawing MD.R83.CJ.A), vol. 4: steel fibre reinforced concrete pavements
(Drawing MD.R83.CF.A), Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW.
Standards Australia 2002, Road and traffic engineering: glossary of terms, AS 1348, SA, North Sydney.
Vorobieff, G 1996, 'Rigid pavement design using spreadsheets', Combined 18th ARRB transport research
conference and transit New Zealand land transport symposium, 1996, Christchurch, New Zealand,
ARRB Transport Research Ltd, Vermont South, Vic.
Austroads 2008
— 4.13 —

Chapter 5: Development of Design Charts for Lightly Trafficked Roads
Zahid Hoque and Geoff Jameson

December 2007
SUMMARY
This technical report describes the development of design charts for lightly trafficked roads
included in Chapter 12 of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural
Design. The development was guided by an Austroads Working Group.
Two sets of revised design charts for flexible pavements with asphalt surfacings were developed
covering a design traffic range of 103 to 105 ESA. Initially these design charts were developed
considering both asphalt fatigue and permanent deformation distress modes. These revised charts
generally yielded thicker granular layers compared to the 1998 Guide to the Design of New
Pavements for Light Traffic (LT Guide) charts (Austroads Pavement Research Group, 1998).
Asphalt fatigue was commonly the distress mode that dictated the required thickness.
After reviewing these initial charts, the Working Group agreed that these increases in granular
thickness were unwarranted as asphalt fatigue cracking was not commonly observed on lightly
trafficked roads. Hence a second set of revised design charts were developed based on
permanent deformation distress only. The design charts developed based on permanent
deformation distress only were in closer agreement with the 1998 LT Guide values.
The revised full-depth asphalt design charts both with or without consideration of asphalt fatigue
have lower asphalt thicknesses than the 1998 LT Guide charts. This was due to the use of higher
design asphalt moduli in the revised procedures.
Chapter 8 of the Austroads Guide includes an empirical sprayed seal surfaced granular design
chart (Figure 8.4) applicable to design traffic of 105 to 108 ESA. There was a need to provide a
design chart for lightly trafficked roads (<105 ESA). The 1998 LT Guide included three empirical
pavement design charts for three confidence levels and covered the traffic loadings of 103 to 5x105
ESA. To be consistent with the Austroads Guide approach to design reliability, a single empirical
design chart for lightly trafficked pavements was developed
Design charts for rigid pavements were prepared covering a design traffic range of 103 to 106
heavy vehicle axle groups (HVAG) to complement the charts in Chapter 9 of the Austroads Guide
which are applicable to traffic loading exceeding 106 HVAG. The light traffic charts were
developed assuming subbase/subgrade erosion is not a distress mode for lightly trafficked
pavements. The concrete base thicknesses obtained with the new design charts were between –
12 mm to +16 mm of those of the 1998 LT Guide. These differences were due to the use of higher
load safety factors and a change to the concrete fatigue relationship to reflect changes to the
strength gain with time of modern finely ground cements.
Austroads 2008
— 5.i —
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2 DESIGN CHARTS FOR ASPHALT SURFACED PAVEMENTS ................................... 2
2.1 Scope ............................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Input Parameters ............................................................................................................ 2
2.2.1 Standard Axle Loading ..................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Traffic Loading Parameters .............................................................................. 3
2.2.3 Asphalt Characteristics ..................................................................................... 4
2.2.4 Elastic Characterisation of Granular Material ................................................... 6
2.2.5 Elastic Characterisation of Subgrade ............................................................... 6
2.2.6 Desired Project Reliability................................................................................. 6
2.2.7 Construction Tolerances................................................................................... 6
2.3 Revised Design Charts Considering both Asphalt Fatigue and Permanent
Deformation ........................................................................................ 7
2.3.1 Development of Charts ..................................................................................... 7
2.3.2 Comparison between the 1998 Design Charts and the Revised Charts........... 8
2.4 Revised Design Charts Considering Permanent Deformation Only ............................... 9
2.4.1 Development of Charts ..................................................................................... 9
2.4.2 Comparison of 1998 and Revised Charts ......................................................... 9
3 GRANULAR PAVEMENTS WITH THIN BITUMINOUS SURFACINGS...................... 12
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Development of the Chart............................................................................................. 13
3.3 Comparison of Empirical and Mechanistic Design Charts............................................ 17
4 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN CHARTS ........................................................................ 20
4.1 General .......................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 20
4.3 Input Parameters .......................................................................................................... 21
4.3.1 Project Reliability and Load Safety Factor ...................................................... 21
4.3.2 Concrete Shoulders ........................................................................................ 21
4.4 Base Thickness Design ................................................................................................ 22
4.5 Comparison between the 1998 Design Tables and the Example Design Charts ......... 22
5 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 26
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX A 1998 DESIGN CHART INPUT PARAMETERS AND TRAFFIC
LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS................................................................... 28
APPENDIX B REVISED FLEXIBLE EXAMPLE DESIGN CHARTS
CONSIDERING ASPHALT FATIGUE AND PERMANENT
DEFORMATION ............................................................................... 40
APPENDIX C REVISED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT EXAMPLE DESIGN
CHARTS CONSIDERING PERMANENT DEFORMATION
ONLY ................................................................................................ 58
APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE EMPIRICAL
DESIGN CHARTS AND THE CHARTS OBTAINED BY THE
2008 AUSTROADS GUIDE MECHANISTIC PROCEDURE............ 73
Austroads 2008
— 5.ii —
TABLES
Table 2.1: Proposed input parameters for development of flexible pavement design
charts ................................................................................................................ 3
Table 2.2: Summary of calculated traffic parameters ........................................................ 4
Table 2.3: Typical project reliability levels ......................................................................... 6
Table 2.4: Catalogue of example design charts (asphalt fatigue and permanent
deformation)...................................................................................................... 7
Table 2.5: Comparison of asphalt moduli (MPa) between the 1998 LT Guide and
those adopted for revised charts ...................................................................... 8
Table 2.6: Range asphalt moduli for same temperature and speed of loading ................. 8
Table 2.7: Catalogue of example design chart (permanent deformation only) ................ 10
Table 3.1: Suggested confidence levels for different locations and purposes (APRG
1998)............................................................................................................... 12
Table 3.2: Thickness of granular material for design traffic of 105 ESA........................... 14
Table 3.3: Thickness (mm) of granular material obtained from 1998 LT Guide 90%
chart and Figure 8.4 of the 2004 Austroads Guide ......................................... 15
Table 4.1: Comparison of concrete base thickness (mm) of the 1998 LT Guide and
revised design charts...................................................................................... 25
FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Asphalt moduli (Class 170 binder and aggregate size 14 mm) for
various temperatures and design speeds......................................................... 5
Figure 2.2: Asphalt moduli (Class 320 binder and aggregate size 14 mm) for various
temperatures and design speeds ..................................................................... 5
Figure 3.1: 1998 granular design charts for lightly trafficked pavements.......................... 13
Figure 3.2: Granular thickness for subgrade CBR of 5% versus log of design traffic
and the line of best fit...................................................................................... 15
Figure 3.3: Granular design charts for pavements with thin bituminous surfacing............ 16
Figure 3.4: Comparison of granular thickness obtained by mechanistic procedure
and empirical granular charts for lightly trafficked pavements ....................... 17
Figure 3.5: Comparison of granular thicknesses obtained by mechanistic procedure
and empirical design charts for moderately to heavily trafficked
pavements ...................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.6: Data used to develop the Austroads subgrade strain relationship ................. 19
Figure 4.1: Example design charts for rigid pavements with concrete shoulders ............. 23
Figure 4.2: Example design charts for rigid pavements without concrete shoulders ........ 24
Austroads 2008
— 5.iii —
1 INTRODUCTION
In 1998 Austroads published A guide to the design of new pavements for light traffic’ (APRG 1998).
The example design charts in this guide were developed based on the 1992 Austroads Pavement
Design Guide (Austroads 1992) design procedure. With the publication of the 2008 Austroads
Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design, there is a need to provide
pavement designers with a set of revised light traffic design charts compatible with the procedures
in the new design guide.
The scope of the project included design charts for granular pavements with sprayed seal
surfacings, asphalt surfaced granular pavements, full-depth asphalt pavements and concrete
pavements.
This report documents the development of these revised charts under the guidance of a Working
Group established by the Austroads Pavement Technology Review Panel.
Austroads 2008
— 5.1 —
2 DESIGN CHARTS FOR ASPHALT SURFACED

PAVEMENTS
2.1 Scope
Table 13.8.2 of the 1998 Light Traffic (LT) Guide (APRG 1998) includes 24 design charts for
granular pavements with asphalt surfacing and four design charts for full-depth asphalt pavements.
These charts were developed using four asphalt resilient moduli of 600 MPa, 1000 MPa, 2000
MPa, and 3800 MPa, and six subgrade CBR values, 3%, 4%, 5%, 7%, 10% and 15%. For the
asphalt surfaced granular pavements there were six design charts covering the above six
subgrade CBR values for each asphalt modulus. For full-depth asphalt pavements one chart
covered all these subgrade types for each asphalt modulus.
The Working Group decided that the revised design charts should cover a similar range of
pavement types, except that the subgrade CBR values should be limited to 3%, 5% and 7% as this
covers the common design range in most design situations (>CBR 10% is common in Western
Australia).
In accordance with the 1998 design charts for full depth asphalt pavements and to reflect common
practice, a 100 mm thick granular working platform directly on the subgrade was assumed for all
the full depth asphalt pavement design charts.
The charts were prepared using the mechanistic pavement design procedure described in the
Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology (GPT) Part 2 : Pavement Structural Design.
2.2 Input Parameters

The input parameters considered in developing the design charts are listed in Table 2.1 and briefly
explained below:
Austroads 2008
— 5.2 —
Table 2.1: Proposed input parameters for development of flexible pavement design charts
Input parameter Value adopted for development of revised design charts
Distribution of axle groups The same axle distribution as used in the 1998 design charts (Appendix A, see Table
13.8.4)
Distribution of loads on each type of axle group The same distribution of loads on each type of axle group as used in the 1998 design
charts (Appendix A, see Table 13.8.4)
Design traffic parameters The same parameters as used in the 1998 design charts (Appendix A, see Table
13.8.4)
Standard axle loading input to CIRCLY Four circular radii of 92.13 mm, centre-to-centre distances of 330 mm, 1470 mm and
330 mm respectively, uniform vertical stress of 750 kPa (representative for light traffic)
Asphalt modulus 1000 MPa, 2000 MPa and 3500 MPa
Poisson’s ratio for asphalt 0.40
Relationship for asphalt fatigue 5
N = RF ⎡ K ⎤
⎢ με ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where fatigue constant, K= 6918 (0 . 856 x V B + 1 . 08 )
S 0mix
. 36
N = allowable traffic loading

Smix = asphalt mix stiffness (MPa)
VB = volume of binder in asphalt mix = 11.4%
RF = reliability factor = 1.5 (for desired project reliability of 90%)
με = strain (microstrain)
Elastic characterisation of granular material and As per Section 8.2.3 and Table 6.4 of Austroads Guide (Normal Standard Granular)
need for sublayering with Poisson’s Ratio, VH = VV = 0.35
Elastic characterisation of subgrade Vertical modulus, EV = 10 CBR
Horizontal modulus, EH = 0.5 EV
Poisson’s ratio, VH = VV = 0.45
Relationship for permanent deformation ⎡ 9300 ⎤
7
N= ⎢ με ⎥
⎣ ⎦
2.2.1 Standard Axle Loading

Half standard axle loading was used to calculate the critical strains in developing the 1998 LT
Guide design charts. The loading consisted of two circular areas of radius 95.6 mm, 330 mm apart
with a uniform vertical contact stress of 700 kPa.
The 2008 Austroads Guide uses full standard axle loading to calculate the critical strains. The
loading comprises four circular radii of 92.1 mm, centre-to-centre distances of 330 mm, 1470 mm
and 330 mm respectively and with uniform vertical contact stress of 750 kPa. Full standard axle
loading was used in developing the revised charts.
2.2.2 Traffic Loading Parameters

The Austroads Guide included example design charts for design traffic exceeding 105 ESA. The
presumptive urban traffic load distributions were used to develop these charts which have traffic
parameters of SAR5/ESA = 1.1 and SAR7/ESA = 1.6. While this traffic load distribution is
appropriate for moderate-to-heavily trafficked roads it was considered that heavy vehicles on lightly
trafficked roads generally cause less damage.
Austroads 2008
— 5.3 —
The 1998 LT Guide design charts were developed using typical traffic load distributions with traffic
parameters of SAR5/ESA = SAR7/ESA = 1.0. These were selected in view of distributions for six
lightly trafficked street types estimated by Matthews and Mulholland (1994) and detailed in
Appendix A.2. Table 2.2 summarises the traffic parameters calculated for each street type.
Table 2.2: Summary of calculated traffic parameters

Street type
Traffic Local Local Local Collector Average
parameters Minor access access with access without Collector
road without buses buses industrial buses with buses
NHVAG 2.00 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1
ESA/HVAG 0.45 0.27 0.44 0.51 0.59 0.65 0.48
ESA/HV 0.90 0.56 0.91 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.0
SAR5/ESA 0.87 0.82 0.92 0.96 0.97 1.0 0.92
SAR7/ESA 0.69 0.60 0.85 0.97 0.97 1.0 0.85
SAR12/ESA 0.53 0.39 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.96
The Working Group considered the values in Table 2.2 and decided to use the same traffic
parameters, i.e., SAR5/ESA = SAR7/ESA = 1.0, as used in the 1998 LT Guide.
2.2.3 Asphalt Characteristics

Design charts needed to be developed to cover an appropriate range of asphalt moduli. Factors
affecting asphalt moduli include mix temperature, speed of loading and mix composition.
In terms of the range of likely pavement temperatures, Appendix B of the Austroads Guide lists
Weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperatures (WMAPT) throughout Australasia. The minimum
and maximum WMAPT are 17 oC and 42 oC respectively, excluding Kiandra and Thredbo towns.
Heavy vehicle design speeds on lightly trafficked roads generally vary from 10 km/h to 60 km/h.
The range of asphalt moduli associated with these temperature and loading rate ranges were
calculated using the procedure in Section 6.5.3.3 of the Austroads Guide for asphalt mix of 14 mm
size aggregate and Classes 170 and 320 binders. From Table 6.12 of the Austroads Guide, for
size 14 mm asphalt mixes with Class 170 and 320 binders typical indirect tensile test procedure
moduli at 5% air voids and 25 oC are 3700 MPa and 5000 MPa respectively. These indirect tensile
moduli were adjusted to in-service air voids (assumed 7%), for various WMAPTs and design
speeds (Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2). The procedure assumes a minimum modulus of 1000 MPa for
dense graded asphalt.
It can be seen from the figures that for these mixes, asphalt moduli vary from 1000 MPa to over
6000 MPa. The asphalt moduli used to produce the 1998 design charts were lower (600 MPa to
3800 MPa) due to the procedure used to estimate these moduli being different from that in the
Austroads Guide.
Austroads 2008
— 5.4 —
5000
Asphalt Modulus (MPa) 10 km/h
4000 20 km/h
30 km/h
3000 40 km/h
50 km/h
60 km/h
2000
1000
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
o
WMAPT ( C)
Figure 2.1: Asphalt moduli (Class 170 binder and aggregate size 14 mm) for various temperatures and design speeds
7000
10 km/h
6000
20 km/h
Asphalt Modulus (MPa)
5000 30 km/h
40 km/h
4000
50 km/h
3000 60 km/h
2000
1000
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
o
WMAPT ( C)
Figure 2.2: Asphalt moduli (Class 320 binder and aggregate size 14 mm) for various temperatures and design speeds
The results in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 indicate that the maximum modulus can reach up to 4700
MPa for Class 170 mix and over 6000 MPa for Class 320 mix in colder climates. However, it is
unlikely that the asphalt containing Class 320 mix will be used on lightly trafficked roads in cold
climates. Moreover, the Working Group was concerned about the very low pavement thicknesses
that were calculated when high asphalt moduli were used. Accordingly, it was decided to develop
design charts for the following three representative asphalt moduli, i.e. 1000 MPa, 2000 MPa and
3500 MPa. These charts enable designers to interpolate design thicknesses for asphalt mixes with
moduli in the range 1000 – 3500 MPa.
Austroads 2008
— 5.5 —
The fatigue of asphalt is affected by the volume of binder in the mix. For example, Austroads
Guide design charts for moderate-to-heavily trafficked roads were based on 11%, while the 1998
LT Guide charts were developed using a volume of 11.4% (APRG 1998). The Working Group
considered that 11.4 % was an appropriate volume of binder to use in the development of the
revised charts.
2.2.4 Elastic Characterisation of Granular Material

The design charts were developed assuming normal standard base material with the maximum top
modulus of 350 MPa. Consistent with the Austroads Guide, the granular layer was sublayered and
the modulus of each sublayer was determined according to the procedure explained in Section
8.2.3 of the Guide.
2.2.5 Elastic Characterisation of Subgrade

The 1998 example design charts cover six subgrade strengths – 3%, 4%, 5%, 7%, 10% and 15%
CBR (see Appendix A, Table 13.8.2).
The Working Group decided the revised design charts should be limited to subgrade CBR of 3%,
5% and 7%, which covers the range commonly used.
The vertical subgrade modulus was assumed to be ten times the subgrade CBR (Austroads 2008).
2.2.6 Desired Project Reliability

The Guide takes into account the uncertainty in the performance of the designed pavements and
uses a parameter ‘Reliability Factor (RF)’ in the design process. RFs were estimated based on the
desired project reliability which is the probability that the pavement will outlast its design traffic.
Typical project reliability levels by road class are shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Typical project reliability levels

Road class Project reliability (%)
Freeway 95 – 97.5
Highway: lane AADT > 2000 90 – 97.5
Highway: lane AADT ≤ 2000 85 – 95
Main road: lane AADT > 500 85 – 95
Other roads: lane AADT ≤ 500 80 – 90
Source: (Austroads 2008) Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology, Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
There were no specific levels of reliability considered in the 1998 design charts, as reliability was
not a design parameter when the charts were developed. However, it was also noted that the
1998 LT Guide provided design charts for granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacing
based on 80%, 90% and 95% confidence levels (refer Figures 13.8.2C, 13.8.2B and 13.8.2A of
APRG (1998)). Based on the above discussion, a 90% project reliability was selected for the
design charts detailed in Section 2.3. Accordingly a Reliability Factor of 1.5 for asphalt fatigue
(Table 6.14, Austroads 2008) was used for the design charts given in Section 2.3. For design
charts developed considering pavement deformation distress only (Section 2.4), there was no need
to select a desired project reliability as the Austroads Guide does not include reliability factors for
this distress mode.
2.2.7 Construction Tolerances

Similar to the 1998 design charts, construction tolerances were not considered in the revised
charts, but a note is provided at the bottom of each chart to highlight the need to consider such
tolerances.
Austroads 2008
— 5.6 —
2.3 Revised Design Charts Considering both Asphalt Fatigue and

Permanent Deformation
2.3.1 Development of Charts
The list of revised design charts that cover both granular pavements with asphalt surfacings and
full depth asphalt pavements for a range of representative asphalt moduli and subgrade CBR
values is presented in Table 2.4. In order to maintain consistency with the Austroads Guide, charts
are numbered starting from EC25 as the example design chart number in the Guide for moderate-
to-heavily trafficked roads ended at EC24 for flexible pavement designs. All the revised design
charts are presented in Appendix B.1. In developing these charts both asphalt fatigue and
pavement permanent deformation distress modes were considered in accordance with the Guide
procedures for moderate-to-heavily trafficked roads.
The charts have been developed using the mechanistic design procedure described in the
Austroads Guide using the design assumptions discussed in Section 2.2. Before using the charts,
the designer needs to be assured that the assumptions are relevant to the design situations.
Explanatory notes are provided for all example design charts. In cases where more than one
asphalt thickness is theoretically satisfactory; refer to Appendix J of the Austroads Guide.
Table 2.4: Catalogue of example design charts (asphalt fatigue and permanent deformation)
Asphalt surfaced granular pavement
Thickness (mm) Asphalt modulus Subgrade modulus Chart number

(MPa) (MPa)
Asphalt Varying 1000 30 EC25
Granular Varying 1000 50 EC26
Subgrade 1000 70 EC27
2000 30 EC28
2000 50 EC29
2000 70 EC30
3500 30 EC31
3500 50 EC32
3500 70 EC33
Full-depth asphalt pavement

(MPa) (MPa)
Asphalt 1000 30,50,70 EC34
100mm Granular 2000 30,50,70 EC35
Subgrade 3500 30,50 EC36
Austroads 2008
— 5.7 —
2.3.2 Comparison between the 1998 Design Charts and the Revised Charts
It was of interest to evaluate the differences in pavement thicknesses between the 1998 and
revised design charts. In comparing the design charts the same (or similar) design conditions
(scenarios) were needed to apply for both design methods.
As discussed in Section 2.2.3, asphalt moduli of in-service pavements depend on the rate of
loading and pavement temperature (WMAPT). Table 2.5 compares the estimated asphalt moduli
used in the 1998 charts and those derived from the revised procedure (Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2).
For a given temperature and design speed, asphalt moduli used in the revised charts were quite
different to those adopted in the 1998 charts.
Table 2.6 lists the equivalent asphalt moduli of each of the asphalt moduli adopted for the 1998
charts. It is clear from Table 2.5 that there is a range of equivalent asphalt moduli for each of the
four representative asphalt moduli considered in the 1998 charts. To enable the differences in
design thicknesses of the revised and the 1998 charts to be compared, the thicknesses of each
1998 chart were compared to the revised chart thicknesses at the minimum and maximum asphalt
moduli listed in Table 2.6. For example, 1998 chart thicknesses with asphalt modulus of 600 MPa
were compared against revised charts with asphalt moduli of 1000 MPa and 1490 MPa.
Table 2.5: Comparison of asphalt moduli (MPa) between the 1998 LT Guide and those adopted for revised charts
Speed (km/h) and WMAPT (°C )
Design method and binder type 10 km/h 60 km/h
20 °C 25 °C 30 °C 35 °C 20 °C 25 °C 30 °C 35 °C
1998 LT Guide (Class 170) 2000 1000 600 600 3800 2000 1000 600
Revised charts (Class 170) 1900 1280 1000 1000 3660 2450 1640 1100
Revised charts (Class 320) 2570 1720 1160 1000 4940 3320 2220 1490
Table 2.6: Range asphalt moduli for same temperature and speed of loading
1998 LT Guide asphalt moduli Revised chart asphalt moduli for same
temperature and design speed
(MPa) (MPa)
600 1000, 1100, 1160, 1490
1000 1280, 1640, 1720, 2220
2000 1900, 2450, 2570, 3320
3800 3660, 4940
It was assumed that most design conditions would be covered by the 1998 asphalt moduli of 600
MPa to 2000 MPa and thus the 1998 charts with asphalt modulus 3800 MPa were not compared
against the revised charts. Appendix B.2 lists the comparisons and the results are summarised
below.
Asphalt surfaced granular pavements

Table B. 4 to Table B. 6 list the required granular thicknesses for asphalt surfaced granular
pavements estimated from the 1998 charts and revised charts. Figure B.6 to Figure B.17 plot the
differences in granular thicknesses obtained from Table B. 4 to Table B. 6
Austroads 2008
— 5.8 —
As seen in Figure B.6 to Figure B.17, the differences in granular thicknesses vary from -10 mm to
+120 mm with the revised charts generally requiring greater granular thicknesses. The following
observations can be made to explain these differences:
The most common distress mode in the 1998 design charts is permanent deformation.
However, asphalt fatigue was the dominant distress mode that influenced the design
thicknesses in the revised charts for traffic greater than 104 ESA.
This change in distress mode and hence pavement thickness is due to changes in elastic
characterisation of the granular material in the 2008 Austroads Guide. The 1998 LT Guide
charts were derived using the 1992 Austroads Guide procedures which did not adequately
account for the effect of the subgrade support and thickness of the granular layer in
assigning the modulus of the top granular layer. The revised charts were based on the
improved granular moduli procedures in the 2008 Austroads Guide. For a thinner granular
layer on low subgrade CBR, the modulus of the top granular layer is much less in the revised
charts compared to the 1998 charts. As a consequence the calculated tensile strain at the
base of the asphalt layer is higher and the fatigue life lower.
For pavements where permanent deformation was the dominant distress mode in both the
1998 and revised charts, the maximum difference in granular thickness is 25 mm and this
results from the lower granular moduli used in the revised charts for a thinner granular layer.
Full-depth asphalt pavements

Table B. 7 to Table B. 9 list the required asphalt thicknesses for full-depth asphalt pavements
estimated from the 1998 full-depth design charts and the revised charts.
As seen in Table B. 7 to Table B. 9, the differences in asphalt thicknesses vary from -25 mm to +
15 mm. The revised charts generally allow a thinner asphalt layer due to the use of a higher
asphalt moduli for a given temperature and design speed (Table 2.5).
2.4 Revised Design Charts Considering Permanent Deformation Only

2.4.1 Development of Charts
The revised design charts discussed in Section 2.3 were developed considering both asphalt
fatigue and permanent deformation distress modes. A draft report containing these charts was
submitted to the Working Group in December 2004. There was concern that the revised asphalt
on granular pavement charts resulted in some substantial increases in granular thickness to
provide adequate asphalt fatigue life. The Working Group considered these increases in granular
thickness unwarranted as asphalt fatigue cracking was not commonly observed on lightly trafficked
roads. Hence design charts were prepared considering permanent deformation as the only
relevant structural distress mode.
These design charts are given in Appendix C.1 (Figure C. 8 to Figure C. 9) and summarised in
Table 2.7. There are only two design charts for full-depth asphalt pavements. Design charts for all
other pavement compositions were not required as the required asphalt thickness was less than
100 mm and hence asphalt surfaced granular design charts are used.
2.4.2 Comparison of 1998 and Revised Charts

In comparing the required granular thicknesses between the 1998 and the revised charts, the
same design conditions as explained in Section 2.3 were used. A summary of comparisons is
included in Appendix C.2.
Austroads 2008
— 5.9 —
Asphalt surfaced granular pavements

Table C.9to Table C.11 list the required granular thicknesses for asphalt surfaced granular
pavements estimated from the 1998 design charts and the revised charts. Figure C. 8 to Figure C.
19 plot the differences in granular thicknesses obtained by subtracting the 1998 chart thicknesses
from the revised chart thicknesses.
As seen in Figure C. 8 to Figure C. 19, the differences in granular thicknesses vary from -70 mm to
+35 mm. The following observations were made:
The required granular thicknesses obtained from the revised charts (Appendix C.1)
developed based on permanent deformation only are in better agreement with the 1998
charts than the initial revised charts developed considering both asphalt fatigue and
permanent deformation (Appendix B.1).
For pavements on weaker subgrade, with thinner asphalt layers and lower asphalt moduli,
the revised charts require thicker (up to 35 mm) granular layers than the 1998 charts due to
the improved granular characterisation procedures in the Austroads Guide as discussed in
Section 2.3.
The revised charts require a thinner (up to 70 mm less) granular layer for pavements with
thick (+60 mm) asphalt layers.
Table 2.7: Catalogue of example design chart (permanent deformation only)
Asphalt surfaced granular pavement

(MPa) (MPa)
Asphalt Varying 1000 30 EC25

Granular Varying 1000 50 EC26
Subgrade 1000 70 EC27
2000 30 EC28
2000 50 EC29
2000 70 EC30
3500 30 EC31
3500 50 EC32
3500 70 EC33
Full-depth asphalt pavement

(MPa) (MPa)
Asphalt 1000 30,50 EC34
100mm Granular 2000 30 EC35
Subgrade
Austroads 2008
— 5.10 —
Full-depth asphalt pavements

Appendix C presents the revised design charts for full depth asphalt pavements based on
permanent deformation only. Only three design curves on two design charts were necessary as all
other pavement configurations require asphalt thicknesses less than 100 mm and can be designed
using the asphalt surfaced granular pavement charts.
These revised charts require a thinner asphalt layer compared to the 1998 charts. This was due to
the higher asphalt moduli used in the revised charts and the fact that asphalt fatigue cracking was
not considered.
Austroads 2008
— 5.11 —

SURFACINGS
3.1 Introduction
The 1998 LT Guide includes design charts for unbound granular pavements with thin bituminous
surfacings. Charts are provided for three levels of confidence of outlasting the design traffic: 80%,
90% and 95%. These charts cover design traffic of 103 to 5x105 ESA and are shown in Figure 3.1.
The charts were derived from an analysis of data from 200 residential pavements (APRG 1998).
The 1998 LT Guide provides guidance on appropriate confidence levels to use in design, as shown
in Table 3.1. However, the provision of granular design charts for different confidence levels is not
consistent with the single chart (Figure 8.4) of the 2008 Austroads Guide which is assumed to
include varying reliability across the design traffic range. Hence, the Working Group requested a
single design chart be developed taking into account Figure 8.4 of the Austroads Guide and the
1998 LT Guide charts.
Table 3.1: Suggested confidence levels for different locations and purposes (APRG 1998)
Typical use Confidence levels (%) Figure (APRG 1998)
Fixed level urban street 95 13.8.2 (A)
Rural roads (future overlay possible) 90 13.8.2 (B)
Staged construction or temporary works 80 13.8.2 (C)
As seen from Figure 3.1, the 1998 LT Guide charts do not include design curves for subgrade CBR
below 3%. The Working Group requested that a design curve for CBR of 2% be provided in the
new chart.
The Working Group also requested that an equation be provided to the design chart in a similar
manner to the equation in Figure 8.4 of the Austroads Guide.
Austroads 2008
— 5.12 —
(a)
(b)
(c)
Source: APRG (1998)
Figure 3.1: 1998 granular design charts for lightly trafficked pavements
3.2 Development of the Chart

As Figure 8.4 of the Austroads Guide is applicable to design traffic loadings of 105 to 108 ESA, a
new chart was required for traffic loadings less than 105 ESA.
Austroads 2008
— 5.13 —
To be consistent with Figure 8.4, the new chart needed to provide the same granular thicknesses
as Figure 8.4 at the traffic loading where they overlap i.e. 105 ESA. It was noted that the 1998 LT
Guide 90% confidence chart (Figure 3b) has very similar granular thicknesses to Figure 8.4 at 105
ESA as listed in Table 3.2. Hence it was decided that the new chart be developed using the
Figure 8.4 granular thicknesses for a traffic loading of 105 ESA and the 1998 LT Guide 90%
confidence chart thicknesses for traffic loading less than 105 ESA.
Table 3.2: Thickness of granular material for design traffic of 105 ESA
Thickness of cover material (mm)
CBR values
Figure 13.8.2(B) Figure 8.4
(%)
(APRG 1998) (Austroads 2008)
3 381 384
4 330 330
5 282 292
7 235 240
10 192 193
15 147 149
The following steps were used to develop the thickness design equation and hence the design
chart:
1. The thickness dependence on subgrade CBR given in the equation to Figure 8.4 was
retained to ensure that the required thickness obtained from the new chart was the same as
Figure 8.4 for all CBR values.
2. To determine the dependence on ESA of loading, granular thickness for a subgrade CBR of
5% (refer Table 3.3) was plotted against the log of design ESA (Figure 3.2). Equation 1 fitted
the data reasonably well and gave the same thicknesses as Figure 8.4 for design traffic of
105 ESA:
t = 0.475[219 – 211(logCBR) + 58 (log(CBR)2]log(14DESA) 1
Austroads 2008
— 5.14 —
Table 3.3: Thickness (mm) of granular material obtained from 1998 LT Guide 90% chart and
Figure 8.4 of the 2004 Austroads Guide
Design traffic (ESA)
Subgrade
Figure 13.8.2 (B) Figure 8.4
CBR (APRG 1998) ( Austroads 2004)
(%)
103 2x103 5x103 104 105
3 266 281 302 320 384
4 232 240 255 270 330
5 198 208 224 238 292
7 160 170 186 197 240
10 135 140 150 159 193
15 100 105 115 120 149
20 100 100 100 100 125
30 100 100 100 100 100
300
290
280
t = 0.475[219 - 211(logCBR) + 58(logCBR)2]log(14DESA)
270
260
Granular
250
thickness
(mm)
240
230
220
210
200
190
3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
LOG(DESA)
Figure 3.2: Granular thickness for subgrade CBR of 5% versus log of design traffic and the line of best fit
The new design chart is shown in Figure 3.3. It produces granular thicknesses very similar to
those of the 1998 LT Guide 90% confidence chart (refer Table 3.3), with the maximum difference
of about 10 mm.
Austroads 2008
— 5.15 —
CBR
MINIMUM THICKNESS OF BASE MATERIAL
100 30
20
15
Thickness 200 10
of
granular 7
material
(mm) 5
300
4
3
400
t = max{100, 0.475[219 - 211(logCBR) + 58(logCBR)2]log(14DESA)}

2
500
103 2 4 6 8 104 2 4 6 8 105
Note:
1. Appropriate local conditions, environmental and drainage issues must be considered in using these design curves.
2. Thin asphalt surfacings may be included in total granular thickness. However, the minimum granular base thickness of
100 mm is maintained.
Figure 3.3: Granular design charts for pavements with thin bituminous surfacing
Austroads 2008
— 5.16 —
3.3 Comparison of Empirical and Mechanistic Design Charts

The Working Group requested that a comparison be made between the thicknesses obtained
using the new design chart and those obtained using the Austroads Guide mechanistic
procedures. This analysis was extended to also include a comparison of Figure 8.4 thicknesses
with those calculated using the mechanistic procedures.
The results of the comparisons are presented in Appendix D. Table D.1 and Table D.2 list the
required thicknesses of granular material derived from empirical granular design charts (Figure 3.3)
for lightly trafficked pavements and Figure 8.4 for moderately to heavily trafficked pavements) and
those calculated using the 2008 Austroads Guide mechanistic procedures. In calculating the
granular thicknesses, the same parameters (e.g. axle load distribution (SAR7/ESA = 1.14), full
standard axle, tyre pressure (550 MPa) etc.) as used in the development of the subgrade criterion
(refer Chapter 3 of this report) were considered. Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5 summarise the
differences between the required granular thicknesses. It can be seen that the differences
obtained by the two methods vary from -50 mm to +50 mm.
mechanistic procedure - empirical charts (Fig. 5))
60
Difference in granular thickness (mm) (from
40
20
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
CBR 2 CBR 3
-40 CBR 4 CBR 5
CBR 7 CBR 10
CBR 15
-60
Figure 3.4: Comparison of granular thickness obtained by mechanistic procedure and empirical
granular charts for lightly trafficked pavements
Austroads 2008
— 5.17 —
50
mechanistic procedure - empirical charts (Fig. 8.4))
Difference in granular thickness (mm) (from
40
30
20
10
-10
1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
-20
-30 CBR 2 CBR 3

CBR 4 CBR 5
-40 CBR 7 CBR 10
CBR 15
-50
Figure 3.5: Comparison of granular thicknesses obtained by mechanistic procedure and empirical design charts for
moderately to heavily trafficked pavements
The differences in granular thicknesses obtained from the two methods are related to the origins of
the Austroads subgrade strain relationship used in the mechanistic procedures. As detailed in
Chapter 3 of this report, the Austroads subgrade strain relationship was derived using regression
analysis of the subgrade strains of a set of pavement configurations and corresponding design
traffic estimated from the empirical design charts (Figure 8.4 of Austroads Guide and Figure
13.8.2(B) of the 1998 LT Guide).
The data used to develop the Austroads subgrade strain relationship is given in Figure 3.6 for a
number of pavement configurations from the empirical design charts.
As seen in Figure 3.6, although the Austroads subgrade strain relationship is a line of best fit to
data, it is not an exact fit to all empirical data points. This non-perfect fit to the empirical data is the
source of the differences in granular thickness between the empirical and mechanistic procedures.
Austroads 2008
— 5.18 —
3.7
3.5
Logarithm of subgrade strains
3.3
3.1
Empirical CBR-2
Empirical CBR-3
Empirical CBR-4
Empirical CBR-5
2.9 Empirical CBR-7
Empirical CBR-10
Empirical CBR-15
Austroads Subgrade Strain Criterion
2.7
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
Allowable loading (ESA)
Figure 3.6: Data used to develop the Austroads subgrade strain relationship
Austroads 2008
— 5.19 —
4 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN CHARTS

4.1 General
The 1998 LT Guide includes design tables of concrete base thicknesses for a wide range of
subgrade support values and design traffic loadings from 103 to 5 x106 commercial vehicle axle
groups. These tables were derived using the 1992 Austroads Guide procedures.
There was a need to revise the 1998 design tables as the 2008 Austroads Guide procedures differ
from those in the 1992 Guide. Specifically, a load safety factor (LSF) of 1.0 was used to derive the
1998 design tables whereas values in the range 1.05 to 1.2 are recommended in the 2008 Guide
for project reliabilities of 80-90%, reliabilities appropriate for lightly trafficked roads. In addition, in
the Austroads Guide, the concrete fatigue equation reduced the design flexural strength by
multiplying by a factor of 0.944. This factor was included to allow for the difference between the
average and characteristic flexural strength and the difference between strength gains with time
assumed in the design model and Australian experience (see Chapter 4 of this report).
This section describes how design charts were derived to replace the 1998 design tables. As
Chapter 9 of the Austroads Guide provides example design charts for pavements with design
traffic of 106 heavy vehicle axle groups (HVAG) or more, new charts were required for pavements
with design traffic less than 106 HVAG.
4.2 Methodology
The Austroads Guide procedure for the determination of concrete base thickness is based on the
USA 1984 Portland Cement Association method (Packard 1986).
For moderate-to-heavily trafficked roads, two distress modes are considered in this procedure:
flexural fatigue of the concrete base
subgrade/subbase erosion arising from repeated deflections at joints and planned cracks.
While erosion of subgrade/subbase is an important distress mode for more heavily trafficked roads,
erosion is not normally of concern for lightly trafficked roads due to the combination of low axle
repetitions and low vehicle speeds which reduce the possibility of pumping of subbase or subgrade
materials. Portland Cement Association (Packard 1986, PCA 2001) support this view and notes
that pavements designed to carry less than 200 heavily loaded vehicles per day do not suffer from
erosion damage. Hence erosion was not considered as a relevant distress mode in determining
the design charts for lightly trafficked roads.
All rigid pavement types, i.e. PCP, dowelled and CRCP, require the same concrete base
thicknesses when erosion distress is not considered. Hence there was no need to provide
separate design charts according to pavement type as provided for moderate-to-heavily trafficked
roads in Chapter 9 of the Austroads Guide.
Austroads 2008
— 5.20 —
4.3 Input Parameters

4.3.1 Project Reliability and Load Safety Factor
Table 2.1 of the Austroads Guide indicates typical project reliabilities of 80% – 90% for lightly
trafficked roads. According to Table 9.2 of the Austroads Guide, Load Safety Factors (LSF) for this
range of reliabilities are 1.05 to 1.2. Therefore, rigid pavement design charts were developed for
these two LSF to cater for a range of design situations.
Design traffic
The cumulative number of HVAG over the design period, together with LSF and Traffic Load
Distribution (TLD) are used to calculate the design traffic for rigid pavements. Chapter 7 of the
Guide explains the methods of estimating design traffic loading for rigid pavement designs.
Example design charts in Chapter 9 of the Guide cover design traffic exceeding 106 HVAG.
Therefore, design traffic less than 106 HVAG were considered for developing the design charts for
lightly trafficked pavements.
Traffic axle load distributions for lightly trafficked pavements presented in Appendix A.2 were
considered for rigid pavement designs. These distributions were reported by Matthews and
Mulholland (1994) and were used to derive the design tables in the 1998 LT Guide. It was
observed that traffic load distribution on ‘Collector Road with Buses’ (Table A. 4) required the
thickest concrete bases. Hence this traffic load distribution was used to develop the design charts.
Effective subgrade strength

For lightly trafficked roads it is common practice to use an unbound granular subbase and thus this
subbase type was assumed in developing the design charts. The design charts include two design
(effective) CBR values, 2% and 15% which cover the range of commonly used design CBRs for
pavements without bound subbases.
Base concrete strength

To provide adequate abrasion resistance to traffic, AS3600 (Standards Australia, 2001) indicates
that for pavements subject to pneumatic tyres on vehicles exceeding three tonnes gross mass, a
characteristic compressive strength of 32 MPa is required; whereas for less than three tonnes,
25 MPa is adequate.
The typical relationship between the concrete flexural strength and compressive strength (see
Equation 6.9 of the Guide) results in a flexural strength of 4.25 MPa for a compressive strength of
32 MPa. However, the 1998 LT Guide recommended a very conservative value of 3.5 MPa
flexural strength for 32 MPa compressive strength. In developing the design charts, a less
conservative value of 4 MPa flexural strength was proposed for a compressive strength of 32 MPa
due to the fact that higher LSF were considered appropriate for the lightly trafficked roads.
4.3.2 Concrete Shoulders

To cater for a range of design situations, charts were provided with and without allowance for the
contribution of concrete shoulders.
Austroads 2008
— 5.21 —
4.4 Base Thickness Design

The design procedure explained in Chapter 9 of the Austroads Guide was used to develop the
design charts, except that erosion was not applicable for lightly trafficked pavements (Section 4.2).
The design charts are presented in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2.
For roads with design traffic less than 106 HVAG, a minimum base thickness of 120 mm would
normally be adopted to allow passage of an occasional overloaded vehicle and this is indicated in
Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2. This minimum may be reduced to 100 mm for light duty accessways
and carparks which will not be trafficked by heavy vehicles.
4.5 Comparison between the 1998 Design Tables and the Example
Design Charts
Base thicknesses provided by the new charts were compared to the thicknesses provided in the
1998 LT Guide design tables. Concrete flexural strength of 4.0 MPa (for a compressive strength of
32 MPa) was used in the example design charts, whereas the 1998 LT Guide suggested the use of
a flexural strength of 3.5 MPa for a compressive strength of 32 MPa. It should be noted that the
concrete fatigue equation in the Austroads Guide uses a reduced flexural strength (Section 4.1).
Therefore, the thicknesses in the example design charts were compared with the thicknesses in
Table 13.9.5 and Table 13.9.6 of the 1998 LT design tables developed for a flexural strength of
3.5 MPa.
Table 4.1 summarises the findings. It can be seen that the concrete base thicknesses in the new
design charts differed between -12 mm to +16 mm for the same design conditions. The
differences are due to the combined effects of different LSF (>1.0) and concrete flexural strengths
used in the two methods.
Austroads 2008
— 5.22 —
EC03 - EXAMPLE DESIGN CHART 3

Lightly trafficked roads with concrete shoulder (LSF = 1.05)
200
190
180
170
160
Concrete base
thickness 150
(mm) Effective CBR 2% Effective CBR 3% Effective CBR 5% Effective CBR 15%
140
130
120
Minimum base thickness
110
100
103
1E+03 104
1E+04 105
1E+05 106
1E+06
Heavy vehicle axle groups
Note: Allowance to be made for construction tolerances.

Lightly trafficked roads with concrete shoulder (LSF = 1.2)
200
190
180
170
160 Effective CBR 2% Effective CBR 3% Effective CBR 5% Effective CBR 15%
Concrete base
thickness 150
(mm)
140
130
120
110
100
103
1E+03 104
1E+04 105
1E+05 10 6
1E+06
Figure 4.1: Example design charts for rigid pavements with concrete shoulders
Austroads 2008
— 5.23 —

Lightly trafficked roads without concrete shoulder (LSF = 1.05)
240
230
220
210
200
190
Concrete base 180

thickness 170 Effective CBR 2% Effective CBR 3% Effective CBR 5% Effective CBR 15%
(mm) 160
150
140
130
120
110
100
103
1E+03 10 4
1E+04 10
1E+05
5 6
10
1E+06

Lightly trafficked roads without concrete shoulder (LSF = 1.2)
240
230
220
210
200
190
Effective CBR 2% Effective CBR 3% Effective CBR 5% Effective CBR 15%
Concrete base 180
thickness 170
(mm) 160
150
140
130
120
110
100
103
1E+03 104
1E+04 10
1E+05
5 6
10
1E+06
Figure 4.2: Example design charts for rigid pavements without concrete shoulders
Austroads 2008
— 5.24 —
Table 4.1: Comparison of concrete base thickness (mm) of the 1998 LT Guide and revised design charts
Subgrade design CBR 2% Subgrade design CBR 15%

103 104 105 106 103 104 105 106
Design procedure
HVAG HVAG HVAG HVAG HVAG HVAG HVAG HVAG
1998 Design Tables 140 160 170 190 130 140 150 160
With shoulder Design chart, LSF = 1.05 136 148 163 181 118 128 140 155
Design chart, LSF = 1.20 150 163 179 200 129 140 154 170
-4 to -12 to -7 to -9 to -12 to -12 to -10 to -5 to

Difference in thickness
+10 +3 +9 +10 -1 0 +4 +10
1998 Design Tables 170 180 200 220 150 160 170 190
Without
Design chart, LSF = 1.05 161 175 192 214 139 150 163 180
shoulder
Design chart, LSF = 1.20 177 193 212 236 151 164 178 196
-9 to -5 to -8 to -6 to -11 to -10 to -7 to -10 to

Difference in thickness
+7 +13 +12 +16 +1 +4 +8 +6
Austroads 2008
— 5.25 —
5 SUMMARY
This technical report describes the development of design charts for lightly trafficked roads
included in Chapter 12 of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural
Design. The development was guided by an Austroads Working Group.
Two sets of revised design charts for flexible pavements with asphalt surfacings were developed
covering a design traffic range of 103 to 105 ESA. Initially these design charts were developed
considering both asphalt fatigue and permanent deformation distress modes. These revised charts
generally yielded thicker granular layers compared to the 1998 Austroads Guide to the Design of
New Pavements for Light Traffic (LT Guide) charts. Asphalt fatigue was commonly the distress
mode that dictated the required thickness.
After reviewing these initial charts, the Working Group agreed that these increases in granular
thickness were unwarranted as asphalt fatigue cracking was not commonly observed on lightly
trafficked roads. Structural deformation and importantly non-load associated distress were more
common. Hence a second set of revised design charts was developed based on permanent
deformation distress only. Again the design thicknesses of the revised charts were compared to
those obtained from the 1998 LT Guide charts. The design charts developed based on permanent
deformation distress only were in closer agreement with the 1998 LT Guide values.
The revised full-depth asphalt design charts both with or without consideration of asphalt fatigue
have lower asphalt thicknesses than the 1998 LT Guide charts. This was due to the use of higher
design asphalt moduli in the revised procedures.
Chapter 8 of the Austroads Guide includes an empirical sprayed seal surfaced granular design
chart (Figure 8.4) applicable to design traffic of 105 to 108 ESA. There was a need to provide a
design chart for lightly trafficked roads (<105 ESA). The 1998 LT Guide included three empirical
pavement design charts for three confidence levels and covered the traffic loadings of 103 to 5x105
ESA. To be consistent with the Austroads Guide approach to design reliability, a single empirical
design chart for lightly trafficked pavements was developed. This chart was developed using the
data from the Austroads Guide and from the 1998 LT Guide.
A comparison was made of the granular thickness obtained from the empirical design charts and
the Austroads mechanistic procedures. Differences in granular thicknesses were quantified. It
was concluded that these differences were not unexpected as the subgrade strain criterion is the
best estimate of the required strains across a wide range of granular thickness and subgrade
CBRs in the empirical charts. The required strain of individual pavement configurations may differ
from the value estimated from the line of best fit.
Design charts for rigid pavements were prepared covering a design traffic range of 103 to 106
heavy vehicle axle groups (HVAG) to complement the charts in Chapter 9 of the Austroads Guide
which are applicable to traffic loading exceeding 106 HVAG. The light traffic charts were developed
assuming subbase/subgrade erosion is not a distress mode for lightly trafficked pavements. The
concrete base thicknesses obtained with the new design charts were between –12 mm to +16 mm
of those of the 1998 LT Guide. These differences were due to the use of higher load safety factors
and a change to the concrete fatigue relationship to reflect changes to the strength gain with time
of modern finely ground cements.
Austroads 2008
— 5.26 —
REFERENCES
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2004, Technical basis of Austroads pavement design guide, by G Jameson & K Sharp, AP-
T33/04, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (in press), ‘Guide to pavement technology: part 2: pavement structural design’, Austroads,
Sydney.
Austroads Pavement Research Group 1998, A guide to the design of new pavements for light traffic: a
supplement to Austroads pavement design, APRG report no. 21, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont
South, Vic.
Matthews, S & Mulholland, P 1994, ‘Thickness design for concrete residential roads’, Australian Road
Research Board Conference, 17th, 1994, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australian Road Research Board,
Vermont South, Vic, part 4, pp.173-86.
Mulholland, PJ 1989, Into a new age of pavement design: a structural guide for flexible residential street
pavements, special report 41, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Packard, RG 1984, Thickness design for concrete highway and street pavements, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, Illinois, USA.
Portland Cement Association 2001, Subgrades and subbases for concrete, PCA, Skokie, Illinois, USA.
Standards Australia 2001, Concrete structures, AS 3600-2001, Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2008
— 5.27 —
APPENDIX A 1998 DESIGN CHART INPUT PARAMETERS

AND TRAFFIC LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS
A.1 1998 Design Chart Input Parameters
Austroads 2008
— 5.28 —
Austroads 2008
— 5.29 —
A.2 Traffic Load Distributions for Lightly Traffic Roads

Example design charts in the 1998 Light Traffic Guide (APRG 1998) were developed using data on
the distributions of loads on axle groups for urban street traffic reported by Matthews and
Mulholland (1994). The data was collected during the course of development of Into a new age of
pavement design – a structural design guide for flexible residential street pavements (Mulholland
1989) and consists of results of a survey of commercial vehicle traffic on urban streets.
The survey covered 5 minor roads, 29 local access roads without buses, 9 local access roads with
buses, 9 collectors without buses and 5 with buses. The data reported was for commercial vehicles
with GVM in excess of 13 tonne – designated as Heavy Commercial Vehicles. Data adopted
represent 90 percentile values for the streets surveyed and are reproduced in Table A. 1 and
Table A. 2.
Austroads 2008
— 5.30 —
Table A. 1: Percentages of heavy commercial vehicles according to vehicle type and estimated % loading –
for each street type
Type of heavy Estimated % Street type
commercial loading
vehicle Minor Local access Local Local access in Collector Collector
with no access with industrial area with no with buses
buses buses buses
2 – axle rigid Full 14 5 3 3 18 15
truck 75 10 6 6 12 10
50 57 19 12 11 9 8
25 19 12 11 9 8
Empty 19 12 11 9 8
3 – axle rigid Full 9 9 8
truck 75
50 29 5 3 9 5 4
25 5 3
Empty 10 6 11 7 6
5 – axle Full 6 11 9
articulated truck 75
50 6 5 4
25 5 3
Empty 5 3 17 6 5
2 – axle bus Full 6 6
50 12 3
Empty 18 3
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: (APRG 1998)
Table A. 2: Loads assigned to axle groups according to type of heavy vehicle

and estimated percentage loading
Type of heavy Estimated % Load on axle group (kN)
commercial loading Single axle with single Single axle with dual Tandem axle with dual tyres
vehicle tyres (SAS) tyres (SAD) (TAD)
2 – axle rigid Full 52.9 83.3
truck 75 49.0 68.6
50 44.1 53.9
25 39.2 39.2
Empty 34.3 24.5
3 – axle rigid Full 52.9 147.0
truck 75 49.0 119.1
50 44.1 91.1
25 39.2 62.7
Empty 34.3 34.3
5 – axle Full 39.2 147.0
articulated truck 75 39.2 120.1
50 39.2 93.1
25 39.2 66.6
Empty 39.2 39.2
2 – axle bus Full 63.7
50 51.9
Empty 39.2
Source: APRG (1998), Matthews and Mulholland (1994)
Austroads 2008
— 5.31 —
Traffic load distribution data for each street type was also estimated by Matthews and Mulholland
(1994) and are presented in Table A. 3.
Traffic load distributions in Table A. 3 were used to calculate traffic parameters for flexible
pavement design and to design concrete base thicknesses for rigid pavements. Table A.4 to
Table A.9 summarise the traffic parameter calculations.
Austroads 2008
— 5.32 —
Table A. 3: Load spectrum for six road types (Matthews and Mulholland 1994)
Axle load Street type
group Minor road Local access with no Local access with buses Local access in Collector with no buses Collector with buses
buses industrial area
Axle % of each Axle % of each Axle % of each Axle % of each Axle % of each Axle % of each
load (kN) axle group load (kN) axle group load (kN) axle group load (kN) axle group load (kN) axle group load (kN) axle group
SAS 52.9 7.1 52.9 2.3 63.7 2.9 52.9 5.0 52.9 12.2 63.7 2.9
44.1 42.9 49.0 4.5 52.9 1.5 49.0 2.5 49.0 5.3 52.9 11.0
44.1 11.4 51.9 5.9 44.1 8.8 44.1 6.4 51.9 1.4
39.2 15.9 49.0 2.9 39.2 17.5 39.2 13.8 49.0 4.8
34.3 13.6 44.1 7.4 34.3 10.0 34.3 7.4 44.1 5.8
39.2 19.1 39.2 13.9
34.3 8.8 34.3 6.7
SAD 83.1 7.1 83.3 2.3 83.3 4.4 83.3 1.3 83.3 8.0 83.3 10.1
53.9 28.6 68.6 4.5 75.5 5.9 68.6 2.5 68.6 5.3 75.5 1.4
53.9 9.1 68.6 11.8 53.9 5.0 53.9 4.3 68.6 4.8
39.2 9.1 53.9 5.9 39.2 5.0 39.2 4.3 53.9 3.8
24.5 9.1 39.2 5.9 24.5 5.0 24.5 4.3 39.2 3.8
24.5 5.9 24.5 3.8
TAD 91.1 14.3 91.1 2.3 91.1 1.5 147 18.8 147 13.8 147 12.5
66.6 4.5 66.6 2.9 93.1 8.8 93.1 6.4 93.1 5.8
62.7 2.3 62.7 1.5 39.2 5.0 39.2 5.3 39.2 4.8
39.2 4.5 39.2 2.9 34.3 5.0 34.3 3.2 34.3 2.9
34.3 4.5 34.3 2.9
Austroads 2008
— 5.33 —
Table A. 4: Traffic parameters for collector with buses

Axle Axle load Axle load SAR for each axle group type and load % of each SAR for each axle group type weighted by proportion of axle loads of
load (kN) causing same axle group each type and each load
group (2) damage m=4 m=5 m=7 m = 12 (8) m=4 m=5 m=7 m = 12
(1) (3)
(4) = (5) = (6) = (7) = (9 )= (4)x(8)/100 (10) = (5)x(8)/100 (11) = (12) =
(2)/(3)^4 (2)/(3)^5 (2)/(3)^7 (2)/(3)^12 (6)x(8)/100 (7)x(8)/100
SAS 63.7 53 2.09 2.51 3.62 9.09 2.9 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.26
52.9 53 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
51.9 53 0.92 0.90 0.86 0.78 1.4 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
49 53 0.73 0.68 0.58 0.39 4.8 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02
44.1 53 0.48 0.40 0.28 0.11 5.8 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01
39.2 53 0.30 0.22 0.12 0.03 13.9 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00
34.3 53 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.01 6.7 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 46.5
SAD 83.3 80 1.18 1.22 1.33 1.62 10.1 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.16
75.5 80 0.79 0.75 0.67 0.50 1.4 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
68.6 80 0.54 0.46 0.34 0.16 4.8 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01
53.9 80 0.21 0.14 0.06 0.01 3.8 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
39.2 80 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 3.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24.5 80 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TAD 147 135 1.41 1.53 1.82 2.78 12.5 0.18 0.19 0.23 0.35
93.1 135 0.23 0.16 0.07 0.01 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
62.7 135 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
39.2 135 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
34.2 135 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 100.2 0.6542 0.6516 0.6830 0.9380
Note: m = damage exponent NHVAG = 100/46.5 = 2.15
ESA/HVAG = 0.6542 = 0.65
ESA/HV = 2.15X0.6542 = 1.41
SAR5/ESA = 6516/0.6542 = 1.00
SAR7/ESA = 06830/0.6542 = 1.04
SAR12/ESA 0.9380/0.6542 = 1.43
Austroads 2008
— 5.34 —
Table A. 5: Traffic parameters for collector without buses

Axle Axle load Axle load SAR for each axle group type and load % of each SAR for each axle group type weighted by proportion of axle loads
load (kN) Causing same axle group of each type and each load
(1) (3)
(4) = (5) = (6) = (7) = (9 )= (4)x(8)/100 (10) = (5)x(8)/100 (11) = (12) =
(2)/(3)^4 (2)/(3)^5 (2)/(3)^7 (2)/(3)^12 (6)x(8)/100 (7)x(8)/100
SAS 63.7 53 2.09 2.51 3.62 9.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
52.9 53 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 12.2 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
51.9 53 0.92 0.90 0.86 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
49 53 0.73 0.68 0.58 0.39 5.3 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02
44.1 53 0.48 0.40 0.28 0.11 6.4 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01
39.2 53 0.30 0.22 0.12 0.03 13.8 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00
34.3 53 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.01 7.4 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 45.1
SAD 83.3 80 1.18 1.22 1.33 1.62 8 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.13
75.5 80 0.79 0.75 0.67 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
68.6 80 0.54 0.46 0.34 0.16 5.3 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01
53.9 80 0.21 0.14 0.06 0.01 4.3 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
39.2 80 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 4.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24.5 80 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TAD 147 135 1.41 1.53 1.82 2.78 13.8 0.19 0.21 0.25 0.38
93.1 135 0.23 0.16 0.07 0.01 6.4 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
62.7 135 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
39.2 135 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
34.2 135 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 100 0.5882 0.5723 0.5714 0.6740
ESA/HVAG = 0.5882 = 0.59
ESA/HV = 2.22x0.5882 = 1.30
SAR5/ESA = 0.5723/0.5882 = 0.97
SAR7/ESA = 0.5714/0.5882 = 0.97
SAR12/ESA = 0.6740/0.5882 = 1.15
Austroads 2008
— 5.35 —
Table A. 6: Traffic parameters for local access industrial

load (kN) Causing same axle group each type and each load
(1) (3) (4) = (5) = (6) = (7) = (9 )= (4)x(8)/100 (10) = (5)x(8)/100 (11) = (12) =
(2)/(3)^4 (2)/(3)^5 (2)/(3)^7 (2)/(3)^12 (6)x(8)/100 (7)x(8)/100
SAS 63.7 53 2.09 2.51 3.62 9.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
52.9 53 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
51.9 53 0.92 0.90 0.86 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
49 53 0.73 0.68 0.58 0.39 2.5 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
44.1 53 0.48 0.40 0.28 0.11 8.8 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01
39.2 53 0.30 0.22 0.12 0.03 17.5 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.00
34.3 53 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.01 10 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 43.8
SAD 83.3 80 1.18 1.22 1.33 1.62 1.3 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
75.5 80 0.79 0.75 0.67 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
68.6 80 0.54 0.46 0.34 0.16 2.5 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
53.9 80 0.21 0.14 0.06 0.01 5 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
39.2 80 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24.5 80 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TAD 147 135 1.41 1.53 1.82 2.78 18.8 0.26 0.29 0.34 0.52
93.1 135 0.23 0.16 0.07 0.01 8.8 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00
62.7 135 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
39.2 135 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
34.2 135 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 100.2 0.5072 0.4893 0.4911 0.6224
ESA/HVAG = 0.5072 = 0.51
ESA/HV = 2.28 x 0.5072 = 1.16
SAR5/ESA = 0.4893/0.5072 = 0.96
SAR7/ESA = 0.4911/0.5072 = 0.97
SAR12/ESA = 0.6224/0.5072 = 1.23
Austroads 2008
— 5.36 —
Table A. 7: Traffic parameter for local with buses

load (kN) causing same axle group each type and each load
(1) (3)
(4) = (5) = (6) = (7) = (9 )= (4)x(8)/100 (10) = (5)x(8)/100 (11) = (12) =
(2)/(3)^4 (2)/(3)^5 (2)/(3)^7 (2)/(3)^12 (6)x(8)/100 (7)x(8)/100
SAS 63.7 53 2.09 2.51 3.62 9.09 2.9 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.26
52.9 53 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.5 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
51.9 53 0.92 0.90 0.86 0.78 5.9 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
49 53 0.73 0.68 0.58 0.39 2.9 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
44.1 53 0.48 0.40 0.28 0.11 7.4 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01
39.2 53 0.30 0.22 0.12 0.03 19.1 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01
34.3 53 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.01 8.8 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 48.5
SAD 83.3 80 1.18 1.22 1.33 1.62 4.4 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07
75.5 80 0.79 0.75 0.67 0.50 5.9 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03
68.6 80 0.54 0.46 0.34 0.16 11.8 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02
53.9 80 0.21 0.14 0.06 0.01 5.9 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
39.2 80 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 5.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24.5 80 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TAD 91.1 135 0.21 0.14 0.06 0.01 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
66.6 135 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 2.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
62.7 135 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
39.2 135 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
34.2 135 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 100 0.4432 0.4082 0.3786 0.4693
ESA/HVAG = 0.4432 = 0.44
ESA/HV = 2.06 x 0.4432 = 0.91
SAR5/ESA = 0.4082/0.4432 = 0.92
SAR7/ESA = 0.3786/0.4432 = 0.85
SAR12/ESA = 0.4693/0.4432 = 1.06
Austroads 2008
— 5.37 —
Table A. 8: Traffic parameters for local without buses

Axle Axle Axle load SAR for each axle group type and load % of each SAR for each axle group type weighted by proportion of axle loads of
Load Load Causing same axle group each type and each load
Group (kN) damage m=4 m=5 m=7 m = 12 (8) m=4 m=5 m=7 m = 12
(1) (2) (3) (4) = (5) = (6) = (7) = (9 )= (4)x(8)/100 (10) = (5)x(8)/100 (11) = (12) =
(2)/(3)^4 (2)/(3)^5 (2)/(3)^7 (2)/(3)^12 (6)x(8)/100 (7)x(8)/100
SAS 63.7 53 2.09 2.51 3.62 9.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
52.9 53 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 2.3 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
51.9 53 0.92 0.90 0.86 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
49 53 0.73 0.68 0.58 0.39 4.5 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02
44.1 53 0.48 0.40 0.28 0.11 11.4 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01
39.2 53 0.30 0.22 0.12 0.03 15.9 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.00
34.3 53 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.01 13.6 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00
Sub-total 47.7
SAD 83.3 80 1.18 1.22 1.33 1.62 2.3 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04
75.5 80 0.79 0.75 0.67 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
68.6 80 0.54 0.46 0.34 0.16 4.5 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
53.9 80 0.21 0.14 0.06 0.01 9.1 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00
39.2 80 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 9.1 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
24.5 80 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TAD 91.1 135 0.21 0.14 0.06 0.01 2.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
66.6 135 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 4.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
62.7 135 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
39.2 135 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
34.2 135 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 99.9 0.2670 0.2189 0.1600 0.1031
ESA/HVAG = 0.2670 = 0.27
ESA/HV = 2.10 x 0.2670 = 0.56
SAR5/ESA = 0.2189/0.2670 = 0.82
SAR7/ESA = 0.160/0.2670 = 0.60
SAR12/ESA = 0.1031/0.2670 = 0.39
Austroads 2008
— 5.38 —
Table A. 9: Traffic parameters for minor roads

Axle Axle load Axle load SAR for each axle group type and load % of Each SAR for each axle group type weighted by proportion of axle loads
load (kN) causing same Axle Group of each type and each load
(1) (3) (4) = (5) = (6) = (7) = (9 )= (4)x(8)/100 (10) = (11) = (12) =
(2)/(3)^4 (2)/(3)^5 (2)/(3)^7 (2)/(3)^12 (5)x(8)/100 (6)x(8)/100 (7)x(8)/100
SAS 63.7 53 2.09 2.51 3.62 9.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
52.9 53 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 7.1 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
51.9 53 0.92 0.90 0.86 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
49 53 0.73 0.68 0.58 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
44.1 53 0.48 0.40 0.28 0.11 42.9 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.05
39.2 53 0.30 0.22 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
34.3 53 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 50
SAD 83.3 80 1.18 1.22 1.33 1.62 7.1 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.12
75.5 80 0.79 0.75 0.67 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
68.6 80 0.54 0.46 0.34 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
53.9 80 0.21 0.14 0.06 0.01 28.6 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00
39.2 80 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24.5 80 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TAD 91.1 135 0.21 0.14 0.06 0.01 14.3 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
66.6 135 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
62.7 135 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
39.2 135 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
34.2 135 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 100 0.4482 0.3881 0.3099 0.2358
Note: m = damage exponent NHVAG = 100/50 = 2.00
ESA/HVAG = 0.4482 = 0.45
ESA/HV = 2.00 x 0.4482 = 0.90
SAR5/ESA = 0.3881/0.4482 = 0.87
SAR7/ESA = 0.3099/0.4482 = 0.69
SAR12/ESA = 0.2358/0.4482 = 0.53
Austroads 2008
— 5.39 —
APPENDIX B REVISED FLEXIBLE EXAMPLE DESIGN

CHARTS CONSIDERING ASPHALT FATIGUE
AND PERMANENT DEFORMATION
B.1 Example Design Charts Considering Asphalt Fatigue and
Permanent Deformation
As discussed in Section 2.3.1, initially the design charts were developed considering both asphalt
fatigue and permanent deformation. These charts are shown below:
100
3 4 4 4 5 Asphalt
5X10 10 2X10 5X10 10
mod 1000 MPa
3
2X10 Unbound
3 granular
Thickness 75 10
of
Subgrade
Asphalt
Design mod 30 MPa
(mm)
Traffic
(ESA) Dominant distress
50
mode
asphalt
40
fatigue
subgrade
For asphalt thickness less than 40 mm, empirical granular chart Fig. 5 can be used.
25 deformation
0 100 200 300 400
Thickness of Unbound Granular Material (mm)
Note:
1. Allowance to be made for construction tolerances.
2. Pavement permanent deformation and asphalt fatigue were included in the design.
3. For explanation of why more than one asphalt thickness is satisfactory refer to Appendix J of Austroads
(2008).
4. There is considerable uncertainty associated with the use of mechanistic models for asphalt thicknesses
less than 40 mm. Refer Section 8.2.5 of Austroads (2008).
Austroads 2008
— 5.40 —
EC 26 - EXAMPLE DESIGN CHART 26
100 Asphalt
4 4 5
2X10 5X10 10
mod 1000 MPa
Design 4 Unbound
10
Traffic granular
Thickness 75 (ESA)
of 3
5X10 Subgrade
Asphalt mod 50 MPa
(mm) Design 2X10
3
Traffic Dominant distress
(ESA) 3
50 10 mode
asphalt
40 fatigue
subgrade
deformation
25
0 100 200 300

Note:
(2008).
less than 40 mm. Refer Section 8.2.5 of Austroads (2008).
EC27- EXAMPLE DESIGN CHART 27
100 Asphalt
4 5
5X10 10 mod 1000 MPa
Unbound
4
2X10 granular
Thickness 75
of Subgrade
Asphalt mod 70 MPa
(mm) Design 4
10
Traffic Dominant distress
(ESA) 3
50 5X10 mode
3 asphalt
2x10
40 fatigue
subgrade
deformation
25
0 100 200 300
Note:
(2008).
less than 40 mm. Refer Section 8.2.5 of Austroads (2008).).
Austroads 2008
— 5.41 —
100
4 4 5 Asphalt
2X10 5X10 10
4 mod 2000 MPa
Design 10
Traffic Unbound
(ESA) 3 granular
Thickness 75 5X10
of 3
2X10 Subgrade
Asphalt
mod 30 MPa
(mm) 3
10
Dominant distress
50
mode
asphalt
40
fatigue
For asphalt thickness less than 40 mm, empirical granular chart Fig. 5 can be used. subgrade
25 deformation
0 100 200 300 400
Note:
(2008).
100
4 5
5X10 10 Asphalt
mod 2000 MPa
4
2X10 Unbound
Design
Thickness 75 granular
Traffic
of (ESA) 4
10
Asphalt Subgrade
(mm) mod 50 MPa
3
5X10 Dominant distress
50 mode
3
2X10 asphalt
40 fatigue
subgrade
deformation
25
0 100 200 300

Note:
3. For explanation of why more than one asphalt thickness is satisfactory refer to Appendix J of
Austroads (2008).
4. There is considerable uncertainty associated with the use of mechanistic models for asphalt
thicknesses less than 40 mm. Refer Section 8.2.5 of Austroads (2008).).
Austroads 2008
— 5.42 —
100
5 Asphalt
10
4 mod 2000 MPa
5X10
Unbound
granular
Thickness 75
of Design
Traffic 4
Asphalt 2X10 Subgrade
(ESA) mod 70 MPa
(mm)
4 Dominant distress
10
50 mode
3 asphalt
5X10
40 fatigue
subgrade
deformation
25
0 100 200 300
Note:
(2008).
EXAMPLE DESIGN CHART 31
100
4 5 Asphalt
5X10 10
mod 3500 MPa
Design 4
2X10 Unbound
Traffic
(ESA) granular
Thickness 75 4
10
of
3 Subgrade
Asphalt 5X10 mod 30 MPa
(mm)
3
2X10 Dominant distress
50 3 mode
10
asphalt
40 fatigue
subgrade
deformation
25
0 100 200 300 400
Note:
(2008).
4. There is considerable uncertainty associated with the use of mechanistic model for asphalt thicknesses
Austroads 2008
— 5.43 —
100 5
10 Asphalt
Design 4
mod 3500 MPa
Traffic 5X10
Unbound
(ESA) granular
Thickness 75
4
of 2X10
Asphalt Subgrade
4 mod 50 MPa
(mm) 10
3 Dominant distress
50 5X10
mode
asphalt
40
fatigue
25 deformation
0 100 200 300

Note:
(2008).
100
Asphalt
5 mod 3500 MPa
10
Unbound
Design 4 granular
Thickness 75 5X10
of Traffic
(ESA) Subgrade
Asphalt
4
(mm) 2X10 mod 70 MPa
Dominant distress
50 4 mode
10
asphalt
40 fatigue
deformation
25
0 100 200 300
Note:
(2008).
Austroads 2008
— 5.44 —

200
Asphalt
mod. 1000 MPa
150 100 mm
Thickness Subgrade Modulus (MPa) 30 unbound
of 50 70
Asphalt 100
(mm) Subgrade
modulus varies
50 For asphalt thickness less than 100 mm, Charts EC25 – EC27 can be used.
0
103 104 105
Design Traffic (ESA)
Note:
2. Dominant distress mode is permanent deformation.
200
Asphalt
mod. 2000 MPa
150 100 mm
Unbound
Thickness
Subgrade Modulus (MPa) 30 50 70
of 100
Subgrade
Asphalt
modulus varies
(mm)
50 For asphalt thickness less than 100 mm, Charts EC28 – EC30 can be used.
0
103 104 105

Note:
Austroads 2008
— 5.45 —
200
Asphalt
Mod. 3500 MPa
150 100 mm
unbound
Thickness
of Subgrade Modulus (MPa) 30
Asphalt 100 Subgrade
50
(mm) modulus varies
For asphalt thickness less than 100 mm, Charts EC31 and EC32 can be used.
50
0
103 104 105

Note:
Austroads 2008
— 5.46 —
Table B. 4: Comparison of granular thickness (mm) from 1998 design charts (asphalt modulus = 600 MPa) and
the revised charts (asphalt moduli = 1000 MPa and 1490 MPa)
Traffic 103 ESA Traffic 104 ESA Traffic 105 ESA
Asphalt 1998 Revised 1998 Revised 1998 Revised

CBR (mm) (E=600 MPa) (E=1000 MPa) (E=1490 MPa) (E=600 MPa) (E=1000 MPa) (E=1490 MPa) (E=600 MPa) (E=1000 MPa) (E=1490 MPa)
40 180 200 190 250 270 275 340 345 355
60 150 155 130 230 260 260 315 355 370
3
80 120 - - 185 225 210 280 355 360
100 - - - 160 150 - 255 325 325
40 125 130 120 170 180 180 225 245 270
60 - - - 145 165 170 200 270 280
5
80 - - - 120 120 - 175 265 270
100 - - - - - - 150 235 225
40 100 - - 135 135 130 180 185 215
60 - - - 110 - - 160 210 225
7
80 - - - - - - 130 205 205
100 - - - - - - 110 165 150
Note: 1. Bold numbers indicate the dominant distress mode is pavement permanent deformation and normal numbers indicate the distress mode is asphalt fatigue.
2. - refers where granular thickness is less than 100 mm.
Austroads 2008
— 5.47 —
the revised charts (asphalt moduli = 1280 MPa and 2220 MPa)

40 175 195 175 240 270 285 325 345 375
60 140 140 - 215 260 255 295 365 380
3
80 100 - - 170 220 170 265 355 360
100 - - - 130 120 - 235 325 305
40 120 125 100 165 180 200 220 260 290
60 - - - 130 170 155 190 280 290
5
80 - - - 100 100 - 160 265 270
100 - - - - - - 125 230 190
40 - - - 125 130 135 170 205 235
60 - - - - - - 140 225 235
7
80 - - - - - - 115 205 195
100 - - - - - - - 160 110
Austroads 2008
— 5.48 —
revised design charts (asphalt moduli = 1900 MPa and 3320 MPa)

40 160 185 165 225 280 295 315 370 400
60 115 105 - 190 260 240 280 375 385
3
80 - - - 130 185 - 270 360 345
100 - - - - - - 230 310 265
40 110 110 - 150 190 205 210 280 310
60 - - - 115 160 125 180 290 300
5
80 - - - - - - 185 265 245
100 - - - - - - 140 210 125
40 - - - 115 135 140 165 225 255
60 - - - - - - 150 230 235
7
80 - - - - - - 135 200 175
100 - - - - - - - 130 -
Austroads 2008
— 5.49 —
Table B. 7: Required asphalt thicknesses (mm) from 1998 full-depth design charts (asphalt modulus = 600 MPa) and from
revised full depth design charts (asphalt moduli = 1000 MPa and 1490 MPa)
1998 Revised 1998 Revised 1998 Revised
CBR E=600 MPa E=1000 MPa E=1490 MPa E=600 MPa E=1000 MPa E=1490 MPa E=600 MPa E=1000 MPa E=1490 MPa
3 - - - 135 110 100 185 160 145
5 - - - - - - 135 135 125
7 - - - - - - 105 120 110
Table B. 8: Required asphalt thicknesses (mm) from the 1998 full-depth design charts (asphalt modulus = 1000 MPa) and from
revised full depth design charts (asphalt moduli = 1280 MPa and 2220 MPa)
3 - - - 115 105 - 150 150 130
5 - - - - - - 115 130 115
7 - - - - - - - 115 100
Austroads 2008
— 5.50 —
Table B. 9: Required asphalt thicknesses (mm) from 1998 full-depth design charts (asphalt modulus = 2000 MPa) and
revised full-depth design charts (asphalt moduli = 1900 MPa and 3320 MPa)
3 - - - - - - 130 135 120
5 - - - - - - 110 120 105
7 - - - - - - - 105 -
Austroads 2008
— 5.51 —
120
Difference in Granular Thickness (mm) (from revised charts -
100
80
current design charts)
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
Figure B.6: Comparison of granular thicknesses between current design charts (asphalt E= 600 MPa) and corresponding
revised design charts considering permanent deformation only (asphalt E = 1000 MPa and 1490 MPa) for
40 mm asphalt on granular material
120
100
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
80
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
Figure B.7: Comparison of granular thicknesses between current design charts (asphalt E= 1000 MPa) and corresponding
Austroads 2008
— 5.52 —
120
100
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
80
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
Figure B.8: Comparison of granular thicknesses between current design charts (asphalt E = 600 MPa) and corresponding
design charts considering permanent deformation only (asphalt E = 1900 MPa and 3320 MPa) for
120
100
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7

80
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
Austroads 2008
— 5.53 —
120
100
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
80
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
120
100
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
80
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
Austroads 2008
— 5.54 —
120
100
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7

80
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
Figure B.12: Comparison of granular thicknesses between current design charts (asphalt E =600 MPa) and corresponding
120
100
80
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
Austroads 2008
— 5.55 —
120
100
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7

80
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
120
100
80
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
Austroads 2008
— 5.56 —
120
100
80
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
120
100
80
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
60
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
Austroads 2008
— 5.57 —
APPENDIX C REVISED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT EXAMPLE

DESIGN CHARTS CONSIDERING
PERMANENT DEFORMATION ONLY
As discussed in Section 2.4 example design charts were developed considering permanent
deformation only. These are shown below:

150
10
5 Asphalt
4 Mod. 1000 MPa
5x10
125
4 Design Granular
Thickness
2x10 Traffic Material
4
of 10 (ESA)
100 3 Subgrade
Asphalt 5x10
3
Mod. 30 MPa
(mm) 2x10
75 3
10
50
40
For asphalt thickness less than 40 mm, empirical granular chart Fig. 5 is used.
25
0 100 200 300 400

Note:
2. Permanent deformation is the only distress mode considered in the thickness design.
Asphalt fatigue does not appear to be a distress mode for lightly trafficked roads.

125
Asphalt
Mod. 1000 MPa
5
10 Granular
100 Material
4
Thickness 5x10 Design
of 4 Traffic Subgrade
2x10 (ESA)
Asphalt 4 Mod. 50 MPa
(mm) 75 10
3
5x10
3
2x10
3
50 10
40
25
0 100 200 300

Note:
Austroads 2008
— 5.58 —
100
Asphalt
Mod. 1000 MPa
5
10 Granular
4 Material
Thickness 75 5x10 Design
of Traffic Subgrade
Asphalt 4
2x10 (ESA) Mod. 70 MPa
(mm)
4
10
3
50 5x10
3
40 2x10
25
0 100 200 300

Note:
125
Asphalt
Mod. 2000 MPa
5
10
4
Design Granular
100 5x10 Traffic Material
Thickness (ESA)
4
2x10
of
4
Subgrade
Asphalt 10
3
Mod. 30 MPa
(mm) 75 5x10
3
2x10
3
10
50
40
25
0 100 200 300 400

Note:
Austroads 2008
— 5.59 —
100
Asphalt
Mod. 2000 MPa
5 Granular
10
Design Material
Thickness 75 4
5x10
of Traffic
4 (ESA) Subgrade
Asphalt 2x10 Mod. 50 MPa
(mm) 10
4
3
5x10
50 3
2x10
3
10
40
25
0 100 200 300

Note:
100
Asphalt
Mod. 2000 MPa
Granular
Material
Thickness 75
of Subgrade
5
Asphalt 10 Design Mod. 70 MPa
(mm) 4
5x10 Traffic
4 (ESA)
2x10
50 4
10
40
25
0 100 200 300

Note:
Austroads 2008
— 5.60 —
100
Asphalt
Mod. 3500 MPa
5
10
4
Granular
5x10
Design
Material
Thickness 75 4
2x10 Traffic
of
4 (ESA) Subgrade
Asphalt 10 Mod. 30 MPa
3
(mm) 5x10
3
2x10
50 3
10
40
25
0 100 200 300 400

Note:
100
Asphalt
Mod. 3500 MPa
Granular
Material
Thickness 75
of 5 Subgrade
10 Design
Asphalt
Traffic
Mod. 50 MPa
4
(mm) 5x10
(ESA)
4
2x10
50 4
10
3
5x10
40
25
0 100 200 300

Note:
Austroads 2008
— 5.61 —
100
Asphalt
Mod. 3500 MPa
Granular
Material
Thickness 75
of Subgrade
Asphalt Mod. 70 MPa
(mm) Design
5
10 Traffic
50 4 (ESA)
5x10
4
2x10
40
25
0 100 200

Note:
Austroads 2008
— 5.62 —
200
Asphalt
Mod. 1000 MPa
100 mm
Granular Material
Thickness Subgrade Modulus (MPa) 30
of Subgrade
Asphalt 100 50 Modulus varies
(mm)
For asphalt thickness 40 to 100 mm, Charts EC25 and EC26 can be used.
0
103 104 105

Note:

200
Asphalt
Mod. 2000 MPa
100 mm
Granular Material
Thickness Subgrade
Subgrade Modulus (MPa) 30
of Modulus varies
Asphalt 100
(mm)
For asphalt thickness 40 to 100 mm, Chart EC28 can be used.
0
103 104 105

Note:
Austroads 2008
— 5.63 —
Table C.9: Comparison of granular thickness (mm) from the 1998 design charts (asphalt modulus = 600 MPa) and
revised design charts considering permanent deformation only (asphalt moduli = 1000 MPa and 1490 MPa)

40 180 200 190 250 270 265 340 345 340
60 150 155 130 230 240 225 315 320 315
3
80 120 - - 185 200 165 280 195 275
100 - - - 160 120 - 260 255 220
40 125 130 120 170 180 170 225 230 230
60 - - - 145 140 120 200 205 195
5
80 - - - 120 - - 175 165 140
100 - - - - - - 150 115 -
40 100 - - 135 135 130 180 180 180
60 - - - 110 - - 160 150 135
7
80 - - - - - - 130 110 -
100 - - - - - - 110 - -
Note: 1. Bold numbers indicate the dominant distress mode is asphalt fatigue and normal numbers indicate the distress mode is pavement permanent deformation.
Austroads 2008
— 5.64 —

40 175 180 175 240 260 260 325 335 335
60 140 100 - 215 215 - 295 305 305
3
80 100 - - 170 105 - 265 260 250
100 - - - 130 - - 235 175 150
40 120 110 100 165 165 160 220 225 225
60 - - - 130 100 - 190 185 180
5
80 - - - 100 - - 160 110 100
100 - - - - - - 125 - -
40 - - - 125 120 115 170 170 170
60 - - - - - - 140 120 115
7
80 - - - - - - 115 - -
100 - - - - - - - - -
Austroads 2008
— 5.65 —

40 160 180 160 225 260 250 315 335 330
60 115 105 - 190 220 175 280 310 290
3
80 - - - 130 120 - 270 265 210
100 - - - - - - 230 185 -
40 110 110 - 150 165 150 210 225 215
60 - - - 115 105 - 180 185 150
5
80 - - - - - - 185 115 -
100 - - - - - - 140 - -
40 - - - 115 115 - 165 170 160
60 - - - - - - 150 125 -
7
80 - - - - - - 135 - -
100 - - - - - - - - -
Austroads 2008
— 5.66 —
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
-40
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
-60
-80
Figure C. 8: Comparison of granular thicknesses between current design charts (asphalt E = 600 MPa) and corresponding
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
-40
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
-60
-80
revised design charts considering permanent deformation only (asphalt E = 1280 MPa and 2220 MPa) for 40 mm asphalt on
granular material
Austroads 2008
— 5.67 —
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
-40
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
-60
-80
Figure C. 10: Comparison of granular thicknesses between current design charts (asphalt E = 2000 MPa) and
corresponding revised design charts considering permanent deformation only (asphalt E = 1900 MPa and 3320 MPa) for
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
-40
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
-60
-80
Austroads 2008
— 5.68 —
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
-20
-40
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
-60
-80
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
-40
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
-60
-80
Austroads 2008
— 5.69 —
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
-40
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
-60
-80
revised design charts considering permanent deformation only (asphalt E = 1000 MPa and 1490 MPa ) for
40
20 CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7

0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
-40
-60
-80
corresponding revised design charts considering permanent deformation only (asphalt E = 1280 MPa and 2220 MPa ) for
Austroads 2008
— 5.70 —
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
-40
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
-60
-80
corresponding revised design charts considering permanent deformation only (asphalt E = 1900 MPa and 3320 MPa ) for
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
-40
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7

-60
-80
revised design charts considering permanent deformation only (asphalt E = 1000 MPa and 1490 MPa ) for
Austroads 2008
— 5.71 —
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
-40
-60
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7
-80
corresponding revised design charts considering permanent deformation only (asphalt E = 1280 MPa and 2220 MPa )
for 100 mm asphalt on granular material
40
20
0
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

-20
-40
CBR 3 CBR 5 CBR 7

-60
-80
corresponding revised design charts considering permanent deformation only (asphalt E = 1900 MPa and 3320 MPa )
for 100 mm asphalt on granular material
Austroads 2008
— 5.72 —
APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF COMPARISONS BETWEEN

THE EMPIRICAL DESIGN CHARTS AND THE
CHARTS OBTAINED BY THE 2008
AUSTROADS GUIDE MECHANISTIC
PROCEDURE
Table D.1: Thickness of cover material (mm) from Figure 3.3 and from
using mechanistic design procedure (Austroads 2008)
Subgrade CBR Design traffic = 103 ESA Design traffic = 104 ESA Design traffic = 105 ESA
(%)
Fig. 5 Mechanistic Fig. 5 Mechanistic Fig. 5 Mechanistic
2 317 367 393 439 469 510
3 259 275 322 350 384 422
4 223 230 276 282 330 359
5 197 198 244 245 292 305
7 162 153 201 197 240 244
10 130 102 161 150 193 193
15 101 50 125 85 149 140
Table D.2: Thickness of cover material (mm) from Figure 8.4 (Austroads 1992, 2004) and from
using mechanistic design procedure (Austroads 2008)
Subgrade Design traffic = 105 ESA Design traffic = 106 ESA Design traffic = 107 ESA Design traffic = 108 ESA
CBR (%)
Fig Mechanistic Fig 8.4 Mechanistic Fig Mechanistic Fig Mechanistic
8.4 8.4 8.4
2 469 510 630 620 791 753 952 911
3 384 422 517 516 647 632 779 765
4 330 359 443 446 556 554 669 675
5 292 305 392 393 491 497 591 610
7 240 244 322 307 404 411 486 518
10 193 193 259 242 325 315 391 424
15 149 140 200 186 251 240 302 306
Austroads 2008
— 5.73 —
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads (2008), Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement

Technology, Part 2: Pavement Structural Design, Sydney, A4, 313pp,
AP-T98/08
______________________________________________________________
KEYWORDS:
Pavement design, flexible pavement, rigid pavement, mechanistic design,

pavement materials, design moduli, subgrade, anisotropic, performance
relationships, asphalt fatigue, cemented materials fatigue, subgrade strain,
design reliability, axle load
ABSTRACT:
The Austroads publication Guide to Pavement Technology, Part 2: Pavement
Structural Design is intended to assist those required to plan and design new
pavements. It was originally produced in 1987 as a result of review of the
NAASRA Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design (1979). In 1992, the
Austroads Pavement Design Guide was revised to include an updated
procedure for the design of rigid pavements and also relevant portions of
Chapter 6 (Pavement Materials) and Chapter 7 (Design Traffic).
An essential element in the use of the Guide is a thorough understanding of
the origins of the design procedures, their scope and limitations. Accordingly,
this report contains the following five technical reports detailing the technical
basis of both the 1992 and 2008 editions of the Guide:
• Part 1: 1992 Guide procedures for the design of flexible pavements
• Part 2: 1992 Guide procedures for the rigid of flexible pavements
• Part 3: 2008 Guide procedures for the design of flexible pavements
• Part 4: 2008 Guide procedures for the design of rigid pavements
• Part 5: 2008 Guide procedures for lightly-trafficked pavements.

Ap T98 08 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ap T98 08 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-T98/08

AUSTROADS TECHNICAL REPORT

Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to

First Published August 2008

© Austroads Inc. 2008

Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology

Austroads Project No. TT1159

Austroads Publication No. AP–T98/08

Published by Austroads Incorporated

 Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales

Technical Basis of Austroads Pavement Design Guide

5.4 Reduction in Deflection Parameters due to Overlay Placement................................... 48

2 SETTING THE SCENE

In 1975, a recommendation by the NAASRA Materials Engineering Committee (MEC) resulted in a

Alan Leask Department of Main Roads, NSW (DMR, NSW), Convenor

2.1.1 Format of the IGPTD

Part 1 Information on factors affecting pavement design and performance

Part 2 Flexible pavement design procedures

Part 3 Rigid pavement design procedures

F1: Granular pavement with thin (< 25 mm) bituminous surfacing

F2: Granular pavement with asphalt surfacing up to 100 mm

F4: Overlay design

R1: Rigid pavement design

R2: Rigid pavement design

Table 2.1: Methodology and rationale for procedures in IGPTD

The specific introduction to procedure F3B includes the following text:

It further states that:

2.1.2 Release of the IGPTD

Of the 54 delegates, the only non-SRA/ARRB attendees were as follows:

In commenting on Geoff Youdale’s excellent paper summarising the (then) state-of-the-art of

2.2 Establishment of a Working Group to Revise the IGPTD

David Potter ARRB (Convenor)

Gavin Donald (DMR, NSW) was to undertake overall editing.

The September 1981 meeting of the PTC approved the proposal.

Table 2.2: Revision of IGPTD – initial proposal

2.2.1 A Guide – not a Manual

3 GRANULAR PAVEMENTS WITH THIN BITUMINOUS

The factors taken into account in estimating cumulative traffic were:

Source: (George and Gittoes 1959)

Figure 3.1: Presumed CRB, Victoria thickness design chart

3.1.1 Quality of Pavement Material and its Cover Requirements

is somewhat unfair to Road Note 20.

Technical Bulletin No. 26 states that:

However, further on it states that:

3.1.2 Concluding Comments

3.2 Terminal Condition

3.2.1 Modification of Terminal Condition

The thickness modification is expressed in the following relationship:

This relationship is the foundation for the relationship in Figure 7.2.

This equation can be rewritten more succinctly as:

t/f(CBR) = log10 (N/120) 2

Hence, from Equation 2:

Now, from Equation 1:

= log10 (NM/120) = [t/f(CBR)] * [2R1/(R2 - R1)]0.25

Substituting from Equation 2:

3.2.2 Implicit Model for Roughness Progression

Rearranging these terms gives:

(R2/R1-1)/2 = [(log10 (N/120))/ log10 (NM/120))]4

R2/R1 = 1 + 2 * [(log10 (N/120))/ log10 (NM/120))]4

4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MECHANISTIC PROCEDURE

reaches a value of 1, where:

Procedures which incorporated the capability of predicting the development of permanent

The utility of an estimation model depends on:

Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales

Its stress-dependency – based on repeated load triaxial testing – was given by