STEP-1: EXISTING PAVEMENT DESIGN AND CONDITION

 Thickness and material type of each pavement layer

 Available subgrade soil information
 According to Final Design Report (Design Phase), December 2006, the consultant used
the monthly variation factor which have been established by RHD.As the traffic survey
was conducted in months of June and July, the average factor of June and July was used
to make adjustment to the survey data.

Monthly variation factor

Categor Ma Ap Ma Jul Au No De
y Jan Feb r r y Jun y g Sep Oct v c
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9
Truck
2 0.9 0.9 7 7 9 4 1.1 7 6 3 5
0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Other
1 8 8 1 6 5 6 9 4 7 4 2

As per consultants, the equivalent factor / damaging factors for different categories of
vehicles as per previous studies in Bangladesh as well as Pavement Design Guide ( RHD) are
based on Road Note 31 methodology whereas axle load factors need to be determined as per
AASHTO Design Guide for determination of ESAL and subsequent pavement design as per
AASHTO Pavement Guide and Road Note 29. The equation that is used in final design
report for determining the Equivalent axle factor is :

The equivalent axle factor = {Actual weight on the axle (lb) / 18000}^ x

According to the report considerations, the value ‘x’ used in Road Note 31 is 4.5 whereas for
AASHTO Design Guide and Road Note 29, it is based on AASHTO Road Test and varies
from 3.8 to 4.1 depending on the particular axle load, desired terminal serviceability index
and pavement structure.

In the Final Design report, December 2006, to obtain a realistic conversion, a factor of 0.75
was applied to RHD’s recommended axle factors which are 4.8 for heavy truck and 4.62 for
medium truck for providing the revised axle load as per AASHTO Guide. No correction was
applied to buses and small trucks. The axle load factors adopted for computation of ESAL
are given below.

1|Page
 RHD Recommended In the Report, applied 0.75 factor
VehiclePavement
CategoryDesign Parameters factor
Equivalence Equivalence factor
Vehicle Category
(AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Loaded Empty
Large TrucksStructure 93) Large Trucks
4 Laning of Dhaka-Chattogram 4.8 New
Highway project 3.6 0.08
( Multi axle ) ( Multi axle )
Medium Trucks Construction Medium Trucks
4.62 Ki 3.47 0.06
Standard( Two
axleaxles)
Weight   18 ( Two axles)
Small Trucks 1 ps Small Trucks 1 0.02
Large bus 1 Y Large bus 1 N.A
e
DesignMedium
Life bus   0.510 Medium bus 0.5 N.A
ar
s
M
No of Equivalent Standard Axle
illi
(Average of three section ) for above   61
o
design life (ESAL)
n
Reliability Level R 90 %
0.
Standard Deviation S  
4
-
Standard normal deviate Value
1.
Corresponding of Selected level of Z  
28
Reliability
2
P 2.
Terminal Serviceability Index  
t 5
P 4.
Initial Serviceability Index  
o 2
Overall Serviceability Loss during P 1.
 
design period SI 7
Soaked CBR of Subgrade   10 %
M 13
Effective Roadbed Soil Resilience Ps
R 00
Modulus i
. 0
E 45
Resilient Modulus for Bituminous a 0, Ps
Wearing Course c 00 i
1 0
E 35
Resilient Modulus for Bituminous a 0, Ps
Binder Course c 00 i
2 0
E 40
Resilient Modulus for Aggregate Base Ps
b ,0
course against CBR=80% i
s. 00

2|Page
Resilient Modulus for Granular Subbase Course Against CBR=30% Esb. 22,500 Psi
per
Layer Coefficient for Bituminous Surface Course a1 0.173
cm.
per
Layer Coefficient for Bituminous Binder Course a1 0.142
cm.
per
Layer Coefficient for Aggregate Base Course a3 0.055
cm.
per
Layer Coefficient for Granular Sub Base course a4 0.043
cm.
Drainage Coefficient for Base Course m3 1  
Drainage Coefficient for Sub Base Course m4 1  

Equivalence factor
Vehicle Category
Loaded Empty
Large Trucks ( Multi axle ) 3.6 0.08
Medium Trucks( Two axles) 3.47 0.06
Small Trucks 1 0.02
Large bus 1 N.A
Medium bus 0.5 N.A

Monthly variation factor

Categor Ma Ma
y Jan Feb r Apr y Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

3|Page
 Truck 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9
2 0.9 0.9 7 7 9 4 1.1 7 6 3 5
0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
other
1 0.98 8 1 6 5 6 9 4 7 4 2

STEP-2: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

 Past cumulative 18 kip ESALs in the design lane ( N p), for use in the remaining life method of
SNeff determination only
 Predicted future 18 kip ESALs in the design lane over the design period (N f)

Equivalent Factor Determine:

 According to traffic data analysis, ESAL will be calculated.

 According to Single axle load of vehicle, Equivalent factor will be determined
 Here AASHTO and Road Note 31 method is being followed for determining Equivalent factor.
 Charts of Equivalent factor of AASHTO and Road Note 31 method, are given below.
Load
Equivalent Factor = ( ¿ ¿x
18000
38790 4.5
Equivalent Factor = ( ¿ ¿ =31.66
18000

SMALL TRUCK (2 axle, 4 wheel)

Total Weight= 10.2 ton
Front Axle load 2.04 ton 4496 Lb
Rear Axle load 8.16 ton 17985 Lb
Equivalence Factor (Loaded)   EMPTY TRUCKS
RN 31 AASHTO AASHTO RN 31 AASHTO AASHTO
4|Page
4.5 3.8 4.1 4.5 3.8 4.1
0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 VDF 0.00 0.01 0.01
 MEDIUM TRUCK (2 axle, 6 wheel)
Total Weight= 22 ton
Front Axle load 4.4 ton 9698 Lb
Rear Axle load 17.6 ton 38790 Lb

Equivalence Factor (Loaded)   EMPTY TRUCKS

RN 31 AASHTO AASHTO RN 31 AASHTO AASHTO
4.5 3.8 4.1 4.5 3.8 4.1
0.06 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.08
31.66 18.50 23.29 0.06 0.10 0.08
31.72 18.59 23.37 VDF 0.12 0.19 0.16

HEAVY TRUCK (>2 axle, >10 wheel)

Total Weight= 30 ton
Front Axle load 3.33 ton 7347 Lb
Rear Axle load
Equivalent 13.33 ton 29387 Lb
Axle Load Factor        
  30  
28 5.39 13.33333 ton per rear axle (two axles)
Equivalence Factor (Loaded)   EMPTY TRUCKS
30 7  
RN 31 AASHTO AASHTO RN 31 AASHTO AASHTO
4.5 3.8 4.1 4.5 3.8 4.1
6.512921333 0.02 VDF 0.03 0.03 0.02  0.03 0.03
  9.08 6.44 7.46 0.02  0.03 0.03
13.33333333 *1000
18.17 kg 12.91 14.95 VDF 0.04   0.07 0.05
29.39493333 kip        

Now, for 30 ton, 22 ton and 10.2 ton forheavy, medium and small truck VDF factor are determined
below.

Equivalent
Axle Load Factor  
38 17.2  
40 21.1  

18.7625584 VDF 3.9

17.6 *1000 kg 22 ton total weight
38.801312 kip 17.6 ton rear axle

5|Page
In ths way, for 22 ton and 30 ton in total weight, from the chart, Vehicle Damaging Factors are 18.76 and
6.51. ( inter polation from the chart)

Axle Load Equivalent Factor  

11 3.83  
12 5.67  
  4.62 1.84
   
11.43 *1000 kg 15 ton total weight
25.198806 ton rear
6 Kip 12 axle  

Axle Load Equivalent Factor  

17 27.2  

18 35.2  

32 VDF 8
17.6 *1000 kg 22 ton total weight
38.801312 kip 17.6 ton rear axle  

Axle Load Equivalent Factor        

  30  
13.33333
13 8.13 3 ton per rear axle (two axles)
14 11.3  
9.1866666
7 VDF  
           
13.333333
3 *1000 kg
29.394933
3 kip

In this way, for 22 ton total weight the VDF is 32 and for 30 ton total weight the VDF is 9.2.

6|Page
Two different type of VDF is Interpolated from the AASHTO and ROAD NOTE 31 Equivalent factor
chart for determining the ESAL.

7|Page
8|Page
ESAL Determine:

 In traffic analysis, ESAL will be determined with the daily traffic number and the previous
determined equivalent factor
 First of all, the equivalent factor will be multiply with the daily traffic number
 .Then, the Sum of ESAL will be multiply with growth factor.
 Then the ESAL will be multiply the lane factor and directional distribution factor if it was 2
lane or more and both way traffic count.
 The Final ESAL will be used to determine the Structural Number
 The traffic survey is describing one way traffic.
 Here, according to axle load ratio of standard trucks, VDF for will be multiply by 2 for heavy
truck.

2. 1 Traffic (2019 Survey)

TRUCK BUS
Heavy Medium Small Large Medium Micro
1267 7349 4901 4769 3464 2617
1394 8084 5391 5246 3810 2879

Note: Maximum value among the surveyed sections along the corridor for 2019
Note: 2020 Traffic projection considering 10% growth

Here, 2 types of Traffic analysis have been done.

9|Page
 Traffic Analysis: 1

First of all, using the RHD VDF for estimating the ESAL.

2.2 Estimation of ESAL

Daily
sl. No. Type of Vehicle VDF ESAL
Traffic
1 Heavy Truck 1394 4.8 6691

Medium Truck
2 8084 4.62 37348
3 Small Truck 5391 1 5391

4 large Bus 5246 1 5246

5 Mini+Micro Bus 6689 0.5 3345
Total= 58,021

Now, using the VDF determined from the step 1. The VDFs are 9.2 for heavy truck and 32 for medium
truck.

2.3 Estimation of ESAL using current VDF from Road Note 31

Daily
sl. No. Type of Vehicle VDF ESAL
Traffic
1 Heavy Truck 1394 9.2 25649.6
2 Medium Truck 8084 32 258688
3 Small Truck 5391 1 5391
4 large Bus 5246 1 5246
5 Mini+Micro Bus 6689 0.5 3344.5
Total= 298,319

Now, using the RHD VDF, the estimated ESAL is 58,021. Now using directional distribution factor, lane
factor and annual growth factor, to estimate the final DESIGN ESAL :

Growth Factor = ¿ ¿ =¿ ¿ [Design life considered 5 years]

10 | P a g e
DESIGN ESAL = Directional Distribution Factor *Lane Distribution Factor *Growth Factor * Estimated
ESAL

2.4 Cumulative ESAL

Directional Distribution
Factor 50%
lane Distribution Factor 70%
Annual Growth Rate 10%

For a design life of 5 years

45
DESIGN ESAL 45,288,437
million

Now using the ESAL which have been estimated from VDF that is determined from the chart according
to the load of the vehicles and the ESAL was 298310. As, it was one way traffic, so lane and directional
distribution factors are not used in this part.

2.5 Cumulative using calculated VDF and not considering Lane

and Directional distributions

Directional Distribution
Factor 50%
lane Distribution Factor 70%
Annual Growth Rate 10%

As, it was one way traffic, so lane and directional distribution factors are not used in this part.

For a design life of 5 years

665
DESIGN ESAL 665,296,341 million

Now, considering the lane and directional distributions.

11 | P a g e
 2.6 Cumulative using calculated VDF and considering lane and
directional distributions

Directional Distribution Factor 50%

lane Distribution Factor 70%
Annual Growth Rate 10%

For a design life of 5 years

232
DESIGN ESAL 232,853,719 million

Traffic Analysis :2

Now, using the VDF determined from the step 1. The VDFs are 6.5 for heavy truck and 18.8 for medium
truck.

2.7 Estiamtion of ESAL using current VDF from Road Note 31

sl. No. Type of Vehicle Daily Traffic VDF ESAL

1 Heavy Truck 1394 6.5 14497.6

2 Medium Truck 8084 18.8 121583.36
3 Small Truck 5391 1 4312.8
4 large Bus 5246 1 5246
5 Mini+Micro Bus 6689 0.5 3344.5
Total= 148,984

Now, the estimated ESAL is 148984.

2.8 Cumulative using calculated VDF and not considering Lane

12 | P a g e
 and Directional distributions
Directional Distribution
Factor 50%
lane Distribution Factor 70%
Annual Growth Rate 10%

For a design life of 5 years

DESIGN ESAL 332,257,247 536

2.9 Cumulative using calculated VDF and considering lane and

directional distributions

Directional Distribution Factor 50%

lane Distribution Factor 70%
Annual Growth Rate 10%

For a design life of 5 years AASHTO

116.3
DESIGN ESAL 116,290,037 187.6 million

STEP-3: CONDITION SURVEY

13 | P a g e
Distress and types are measured during the condition survey and are used in the determination of the
structural coefficients. Sampling along the project in the heaviest trafficked lane can be used to estimate
these quantities

 Percent of surface area with alligator cracking ( class 1, 2 and 3 corresponding to low, medium
and high severities)
 Number of transverse cracks per mile( low, medium and high severities)
 Mean rut depth
 Evidence of pumping at cracks and at pavement edges

STEP-4: DEFLECTION TESTING

14 | P a g e
Measure deflections in the outer wheel path at an interval sufficient to adequately assess conditions.
Intervals of 100 to 1,000 feet are typical. Areas that are deteriorated and will be repaired should not be
tested. A heavy load deflection device ( e g, falling Weight Deflectometer) and a load magnitude of
approximately 9,000 pounds are recommended. ASTM D 4694 and D 4695 provide additional guidance
on deflection testing. Deflections should be measured at the center of the load and at least one other
distance from the load, as described below,

 Subgrade resilient modulus (MR): At sufficiently large distances from the load, deflections
measured at the pavement surface are due to subgrade deformation only, and are also independent
of the size of the load plate. This permits the back calculation of the subgrade resilient modulus
from a single deflection measurement and the load magnitude, using the following equation,
MR = 0.24P/dr r
Here,
MR= back calculated subgrade resilient modulus, psi
P = applied load, pounds
dr = Deflection at a distance r from the center of the load, inches
r = distance from center of load, inches

It should be noted that no temperature adjustment is needed in determining M R since the

deflection used in due only to subgrade deformation.
The deflection used to backcalulate the subgrade modulus must be measured far enough away
that it provides a good estimate of the subgrade modulus, independent of the effects of any layers
above, but also close enough that it is too small to measure accurately.

The minimum distance may be determined from the following relationship:

r ≥ 0.7ac

Where,
2
a c =√ [a2 +( D 3 Ep ) ]
√ MR

a c = radius of the stress bulb at the subgrade pavement interface, inches

a= NDT load plate radius, inches

D= total thickness of pavement layers above the subgrade, inches

Ep = effective modulus of all pavement layers above the subgrade, psi

Before, the backcalculated MR value is used in design, it must be adjusted to make it consistent
with the value used in the AASHTO flexible pavement design equation. An adjustment may also
be needed to account for seasonal effects. These adjustments are described in Step 6.
 Temperature of Asphalt concrete mix: The temperature of the AC mix during deflection testing
must be determined. The AC mix temperature may be measured directly, or may be estimated
from surface or air temperatures

15 | P a g e
  Effective modulus of the pavement (E p ) : If the subgrade resilient modulus and total thickness of
all layers above the subgrade are known or assumed, the effective modulus of the entire
pavement structure (all the pavement layers above the subgrade) may be determined from the
deflection measured at the center of the load plate using the following equation

1
1.5 pa { +¿
2
d0 =
MR
√[ 1+ ( √ )]
D
a
3 Ep
MR

Where,

d 0 = deflection measured at the center of the load plate

p= NDT load plate pressure

a = NDT load plate radius

D = total thickness of pavement layers above the subgrade

MR = subgrade resilient modulus

EP =effective modulus of all pavement layers above the subgrade

For load plate radius 5.9 inches, Figure 5.5 may be used to determine the ratio E P/MR , and EP may then be
determined for a known or assumed value of MR.

For purpose of comparison of EP along the length of a project, the d 0values used to determine EP should
be adjusted to a single reference temperature. Furthermore, if the effective structural number of the
existing pavement is to be determined in Step 7 using the values of E P backcalulated from deflection data,
the reference temperature for adjustment of d 0 should be 68º F, to consistent with the procedure for new
Asphalt concrete pavement design. Figure 4.6 may be used to adjust d 0 for Asphalt Concrete pavements
with granular and asphalt stabilized bases. Figure 4.7 may be used to adjust d 0 for Asphalt concrete
pavements with cement and pozzolanic stabilized bases.

16 | P a g e
17 | P a g e
18 | P a g e
STEP- 5: CORING AND MATERIAL TESTING

 If deflection testing is not performed, laboratory testing of samples of the subgrade may be
conducted to determine its resilient modulus using AASHTO T 292-91 I with a deviator stress of
6 psi to match the deviator stress used in establishing the 3,000 psi for the AASHTO Road Test
soil that is incorporated into the flexible design equation. Alternatively, other test such as R
value, CBR or soil classification tests could be conducted and approximate correlations used to
estimate resilient modulus. Use of the estimating equation M R = 1500 * CBR may produce a
value that is too large for use in this design procedure.
 Samples of ac layers and stabilized base should be visually examined to asses asphalt stripping,
degradation and erosion
 Samples of granular base and subbase should be visually examined and a gradation run to assess
degradation and contamination by fines
 The thickness of all layers should be measured
 List of Test procedures:
1. CBR, California Bearing ratio (ASTM D 1883, AASHTO T 193, Mil Std 621A): To
determine the load bearing capacity. The results are used to approximate the resilient
modulus.
2. Dynamic Modulus of Asphalt Mixtures (ASTM D 3497) : To determine the chord
modulus of elasticity in compression.
3. Elastic Modulus of Portland Cement concrete ( ASTM C 469) : To determine the chord
modulus of elasticity in compression.
4. Hveem Stability (ASTM D 1560, AASHTO T 246*): To determine resistance to
deformation/ cohesion, of compacted bituminous mixtures.
5. Marshall Stability (ASTM D 1559, AASHTO T 245) : To determine the plastic flow rate
of bituminous mixtures.
6. Modulus of Rupture: Center Point Loading ( ASTM C 293, AASHTO T 177), Third
point Loading ( ASTM C 78, AASHTO T 97).These methods cover the determination of
concrete strength under flexural loading conditions.
7. Plasticity Index ( ASTM D 424, AASHTO T 90) : To find the range of water contents
over which the soil is in a plastic state.
8. R value: ( ASTM D 2844, AASHTO T 190): to determine the load- bearing capacity of a
material.
9. Resilient Modulus of Asphalt concrete from Diametric strain (ASTM D 4123) : To
estimate the modulus of asphalt concrete and other relatively low strength materials
under simulated field loading conditions
10. Splitting tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimens such as molded cylinders and
drilled cores
11. Unconfined Compressive Strength: For cohesive soil ( ASTM D 2166, AASHTO T 208)
For cement- treated materials ( ASTM D 1633)
12. Joint Sealants for Concrete: Cold applied specifications ( ASTM D 1850), Hote poured
specifications ( ASTM D 3405, D 1190, D 3406), Preformed compression (ASTM D
2628), cork filler for expansion joints ( AASHTO M 153)

19 | P a g e
STEP-6: DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED STRUCTURAL NUMBER OF FUTURE TRAFFIC
(SNF)

 Effective design subgrade resilient modulus must be determined. The following equation can be
used,
a) Laboratory testing described in Step 5
b) Back calculation from deflections data ( NOTE : This value must be adjusted to
be consistent with the value used in the AASHTO flexible pavement design
equation)
c) A very approximate estimate can be made using available soil information and
relationships developed from resilient modulus studies. However, if as
constructed soil data are used, the resilient modulus may have changed since
construction due to changes in moisture content or other factors.

Regardless of the method used, the effective design subgrade resilient modulus must be
(1) representative of the effects of seasonal variations and (2) consistent with the resilient
modulus value used o represent the AASHTO Road Test soil. A seasonal adjustment,
when needed, may be made in accordance with the procedures. M R values backcalculated
from deflections must be adjusted to be consistent with the laboratory measured value
used for the AASHTO Road Test soil development of the flexible pavement design
equation. It is recommended that backcalculated M R values be multiplied by a correction
factor C=0.33 for use in determination of SN f for design purposes when an FWD load of
approximately 9,000 pounds is used. This value should be evaluated and adjusted if
needed by user agencies for their soil; and deflection measurement equipment. Therefore,
the following design MR should be used to determine SNf .
MR = C (0.24P/dr r)
Here, C=0.33
Note also that the presence of a very stiff layer ( e g, bedrock) within about 15 feet of the
top of the subgrade may cause the backcalculated M R to be high. When such a condition
exists, a value less than 0.33 for C may be warranted.
The designer is cautioned against using a value of M R that is too large. The value of MR
selected for design is extremely critical to the overlay thickness. The use of a value
greater that 3,000 psi is an indication that the soil is stiffer than the silty clay A_6 soil at
the Road Test site, and consequently will provide increased support and extended
pavement life.
 Design PSI loss : PSI immediately after overlay minus PSI at time of next rehabilitation
 Overlay design reliability R should be about 95 percent
 Overall standard deviation S0 should be considered 0.44 for flexible pavement

Compute SNf for the above design inputs using the flexible pavement design equation. When designing
an overlay thickness for a uniform pavement section, mean input values must be used when designing an
overlay thickness for specific points along the project, the data for that points must be used. A worksheet
for determining SNf is provided in table 6.1.

20 | P a g e
Structural Number Calculation Using MR information:

 Using the Design ESAL, SN (Structural Number) will be calculated.

 AASHTO equation SN will be estimated.
 For this the design parameters are given below. Here MR will be estimated with CBR
( California bearing ratio)
 Later in 1962, Heukelom collaborated with Klomp to find the famous Heukelom and Klomp
relationship which is used for fine grained cohesive soil with a soaked CBR <10% :
MR (psi) = 1500 x CBR,MR= Resilient modulus, CBR= California Bearing ratio.
 Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) developed the relation, based on in-
situ CBR test and wave propagation. This relationship is only valid for CBR values
upper 10:
MR (psi) = 2552 * (CBR)^0.64, MR= Resilient modulus, CBR= California Bearing ratio.
 AASHTO equation for SN calculation given below:

∆ PSI
log10
log 10 W18 = ZR*S0 + 9.36*log 10 (SN+1) – 0.20 + (4.2−1.5) +2.32* log 10 MR – 8.07
0.4+{1094( SN +1)5.19 }

21 | P a g e
 Here, SN = Structural number required inches (mm).
W18 = Accumulated 18-kip (80-KN) equivalent single axle loads over the life of the
project.
ZR = Standard Normal Deviate.
MR = Resilient Modulus psi (Mpa).
S0 = Standard Deviation
∆ PSI =Change in Serviceability

For 45 million ESAL

W18 45000000  
ZR -1.645  
So 0.4  
MR 12000 psi
delPSI 1.7  
SN 5.39603927 5.4
   
7.653212514 7.653213068 5.539E-07
     

For 232 million ESAL For 665 million ESAL

W18 232000000   W18 665000000  
ZR -1.645   ZR -1.645  
So 0.4   So 0.4  
MR 12000 psi MR 12000 psi
delPSI 1.7   delPSI 1.7  
SN 6.704521106 6.7 SN 7.651720764 7.65
       
8.365487985 8.36548818 1.9468E-07 For 187.6
For 118 million ESAL million ESAL
8.822822 8.82282208 4.34822E-07
      W18 W18 187600000
118000000    
ZR ZR -1.645 -1.645
   
So So 0.4   0.4  
MR MR 12000 12000
psi psi
delPSI delPSI 1.7   1.7  
SN SN 6.524419924 6.14 6.524
6.142948691
       
8.273232834
8.071882007 8.273232708
8.071881842 -1.263E-07
-1.66E-07

Structural Number Calculation Using The

Results Of Coring And Material Testing:

22 | P a g e
Structural Number Calculation Using Back Calculation Method From Deflection Data:

23 | P a g e
STEP -7: DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE STRUCTURAL NUMBER OF THE EXISTING
PAVEMENT

 Three methods are presented for determining this and those three methods are mentioned before.
Those methods are NDT method, Condition survey method and remaining fatigue life method. It
is suggested that the designer use all three of these to evaluate the pavement: an NDT method, a

24 | P a g e
 condition survey method and a remaining fatigue life method. According to AASHTO it is
suggested that the designer use all three of these to evaluate the pavement, and then select a value
for SNeff based on the results, using engineering judgment and the past experience of the agency.

Effective Structural Number (SNeff )From NDT For AC Pavements:

The NDT method of SNeffdetermination follows an assumptions that structural capacity of the
pavement is a function of its total thickness and overall stiffness. The relationship between SN eff \,
thickness, and stiffness is:

SNeff = 0.0045D∛ E P

Where, D= total thickness of all pavement layers above the subgrade, inches

Ep = effective modulus of pavement layers above the subgrade, psi

Effective Structural Number (SNeff )From Condition Survey For AC Pavements:

The condition survey method of SN effdetermination involves a component analysis using the structural
number equation.

The Equation is given below:

25 | P a g e
SNeff= a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3

Here, D1 ,D2, D3= thickness of existing pavement surface, base, and subbase layers

a1 ,a2, a3 = corresponding structural layer coefficients

m2 ,m3 = drainage coefficients for granular base and subbase

In selecting the values for m2 and m3, note that the poor drainage situation for the base and subbase at the
AASHTO Road Test would be given drainage coefficient values of 1.0.

Depending on the types and amounts of deterioration present, the layer coefficient values assigned to
materials in in-service pavement should in most cases be less than the values that would be assigned to
the same materials for new construction. An exception to this general might for unbounded granular
materials that show no sign of degradation or contamination.

For example, one state uses 0.44 for its new high quality AC (Asphalt concrete) surface, but for overlay
design purposes uses a reduced coefficient for the same material in an existing pavement. A value of 0.34
is assigned if the AC layer is in good condition, 0.25 if its condition is fair., and 0.15 if its condition is
poor. The condition rating are made on the basis of the amount of cracking present.

Limited guidance is presently available for the selection of layer coefficient for in- service pavement
materials. Each agency must adopt its own set of values. Some suggested layer coefficients for existing
materials are provided in Table 7.2.

The following notes apply to Table 7.2:

1) All of the distress is as observed at the pavement surface

2) Patching all high severity alligator cracking is recommended. The AC surface and stabilized base
layer coefficients selected should reflect the amount of high severity cracking remaining after
patching
3) In addition to evidence of pumping noted during condition survey, samples of base material
should be obtained and examined for evidence of erosion, degradation and contamination by
fines, as will as evaluated for drainabillity, and layer coefficients reduced accordingly.

26 | P a g e
 4) The percentage of transverse cracking is determined as ( linear feet of cracking / square feet of
pavement) * 100
5) Coring and testing are recommended for evaluation of all materials and are strongly
recommended for evaluation of stabilized layers
6) There may be other type of distress that, in the opinion of the engineer, would detract from the
performance of an overlay. These should be considered through and appropriate decrease of the
structural coefficient of the layer exhibiting the distress( e g, surface raveling of the AC, stripping
of an AC layer, freeze- thaw damage to a cement treated base)

Note: Should not be considered as a part of the pavement since the CBR value for improved subgrade was
considered in the estimate of SN

SN (Required) 5.4
Existing Pavement Layers Thickness and SNE
Existing
Existing Reduce Existing
Existing Layer Layer
Thickness Coefficient SNC
Condition

27 | P a g e
 Aggr. Base Type -1 400 0.13 2.05 Good
Arrg. Base Type -2 0 0.12 0.00 Good
WBM 0 0.11 0.00 Good
Granular Subbase 300 0.1 1.18 Good
Improved Subgrade 300 0.05 0.59 Good
Total Existing Thickness 1000 Total SNE 3.82  

SN (Required) for strengthening the Existing Pavement = 1.58

SN (Required) 6.7
Existing Pavement Layers Thickness and SNE
Existing
Existing Reduce Existing
Existing Layer Layer
Thickness Coefficient SNC
Condition
Bituminous Binder Course 100 0.35 1.38  
Aggr. Base Type -1 400 0.13 2.05 Good
Arrg. Base Type -2 0 0.12 0.00 Good
WBM 0 0.11 0.00 Good
Granular Subbase 300 0.1 1.18 Good
Improved Subgrade 300 0 0.00 Good
Total Existing Thicknes 1000 4.61  

SN (Required) for strengthening the Existing Pavement = 2.09

SN (Required) 6.14
Existing Pavement Layers Thickness and SNE
Existing
Existing Reduce Existing
Existing Layer Layer
Thickness Coefficient SNC
Condition
Bituminous Binder Course 100 0.35 1.38  
Aggr. Base Type -1 400 0.13 2.05 Good
Arrg. Base Type -2 0 0.12 0.00 Good
WBM 0 0.11 0.00 Good
Granular Subbase 300 0.1 1.18 Good
Improved Subgrade 300 0 0.00 Good
Total Existing Thicknes 1000 Total SNE 4.61  

SN (Required) for strengthening the Existing Pavement = 1.53

SN (Required) 7.65

28 | P a g e
 Existing Pavement Layers Thickness and SNE
Existing
Existing Reduce Existing
Existing Layer Layer
Thickness Coefficient SNC
Condition
Bituminous Binder Course 100 0.35 1.38  

Aggr. Base Type -1 400 0.13 2.05 Good

Arrg. Base Type -2 0 0.12 0.00 Good
WBM 0 0.11 0.00 Good
Granular Subbase 300 0.1 1.18 Good
Improved Subgrade 300 0.05 0.59 Good
Total Existing Thicknes 1000 Total SNE 5.20  

SN (Required) for strengthening the Existing Pavement = 2.45

SN (Required) 6.524

Existing Pavement Layers Thickness and SNE

Existing
Existing Reduce Existing
Existing Layer Layer
Thickness Coefficient SNC
Condition
Bituminous Binder Course 100 0.35 1.38  
Aggr. Base Type -1 400 0.13 2.05 Good
Arrg. Base Type -2 0 0.12 0.00 Good
WBM 0 0.11 0.00 Good
Granular Subbase 300 0.1 1.18 Good
Improved Subgrade 300 0.05 0.59 Good
Total Existing Thickness 1000 Total SNE 5.20  

SN (Required) for strengthening the Existing Pavement = 1.33

29 | P a g e
Effective Structural Number (SNeff )From Remaining life For AC Pavements:

The remaining life of the pavement is given by the following equation:

Np
RL = 100[1-( )]
N 1.5

Where,

RL = remaining life percent

Np = total traffic to date, ESALs

N1.5 = total traffic to pavement “ failure”, ESALs

N1.5 may be estimated using the new pavement design equations or nomographs. To be consistent with the
AASHTO Road Test and the development of these equations, a “ failure” PSI equal to 1.5 and reliability
of 50 percent is recommended.

SNeff is determined from the following equations:

SNeff = CF * SNo

Where,

CF = condition factor determined from Figure 7.1

30 | P a g e
SNo = structural number of the pavement if it were newly constructed

The designer should recognize that SNeff determined by this method does not reflect any benefit for pre-
overlay repair. The estimate of SN eff obtained should thus be considered a lower limit value. The SN eff of
the pavement will be higher if pre overlay repair of load associated distress (alligator cracking) is done.
This method for determining SNeff is not applicable, without modification, to AC pavements which have
already received one or more AC overlays. A worksheet for determination of SN eff is provided in Table
7.3.

31 | P a g e
STEP -8: DETERMINATION OF THE OVERLAY THICKNESS

The thickness of AC overlay is computed as follows:

SN ol (SN f −SN eff )

Dol = =
aol aol

Where,

Dol = Required overlay thicknesss, inches

SNol = Required overlay structural number

aol = Structural coefficient for the AC overlay

SNf = Structural number determined in step 6

SNeff = Effective structural number of the existing pavement, from step 7

The thickness of overlay determined from the above relationship should be reasonable when the
overlay is required to correct a structural deficiency.

Overlay For Strengthening of Existing Pavement

Thicknes
s (mm) Thickness
Layer Layer Coefficient SNC for Str
(AASHT (Circly-6)
O)
Wearing Course 50 0.40 0.79  
Bituminous Binder Course 100 0.35 1.38  
Aggr. Base Type-1 0 0.14 0.00  
Granular Subbase 0 0.13 0.00  
Total= 150   2.17  
By,
By, Circly,
  AASHTO,
OK
    OK

Overlay For Strengthening of Existing Pavement

Thickness (mm) Thickness
Layer Layer Coefficient SNC for Str
(AASHTO) (Circly-6)
Wearing
0.40 2.09 132.95
Course  

32 | P a g e
 Overlay For Strengthening of Existing Pavement
Thickness (mm) Thickness
Layer Layer Coefficient SNC for Str
(AASHTO) (Circly-6)
Wearing
0.40 1.53 97.39
Course  

Overlay For Strengthening of Existing Pavement

Thickness
Layer (mm) Thickness
Layer SNC for Str
Coefficient (AASHTO (Circly-6)
)
Wearing
0.40 2.45 155.775
Course  

Overlay For Strengthening of Existing Pavement

Thickness (mm) Thickness

Layer Layer Coefficient SNC for Str
(AASHTO) (Circly-6)

Wearing
0.40 1.33 84.274
Course  

33 | P a g e