Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 67–71

Uncertainty analysis in structural number determination in flexible

pavement design—a convex model approach
Nii O. Attoh-Okine*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA

Accepted 27 November 2001

Abstract

The AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures uses a structural number as one of the major inputs for flexible
pavement thickness design. Previous studies have shown that the layer coefficients, which are a component of the structural
number, have variability. The use of these values without a strong consideration of their variability can influence the overall
determination of the structural number, hence, the thickness of the pavement. This paper proposes to use convex models as a tool
for addressing the variability and uncertainty in the structural number determination. The convex models provide a completely
non-probabilistic representation of uncertainty. The uncertainty is treated as unknown-but-bounded. The approach is illustrated by
an example. 䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flexible pavements; Structural number; Convex models

1. Introduction ative strength of the construction materials.

Proper determination of asphalt, base, and sub-base
layer thickness is the ultimate aim of flexible pavement
design. The determination of layer thickness represents
an important element in Pavement Management deci-
sion. They are required for load rating, overlay design,
and setting of maintenance and rehabilitation priorities.
For example, a rational Project Optimization System
requires correct pavement thickness data for perform-
ance prediction modeling. Negative economic effects
and reductions of remaining life are consequences of
both underestimates and overestimates of the actual
layer thickness w1x.
One major component of AASHTO flexible pavement
design is the use of structural numbers as one of the
components in the determination of layer thickness. The
structural number has the following characteristics w2x:
● An abstract number which is converted to actual
thickness of surfacing, base, and sub-base by means
of appropriate layer coefficients representing the rel-
● The layer coefficients are based on elastic moduli
and are based on stress and strain calculations in a
multilayered system.
The AASHTO flexible pavement layer coefficients
are thus a measure of the relative ability of a unit
thickness of given material to function as a structural
component of the pavement. The AASHTO design
equation also provides a means of adjusting certain
levels of drainage on pavement performance. The effects
of drainage on all untreated layers below the surface are
modified by a factor, which is a function of drainage
characteristics of the roadbed soil.
Two predominant methods are used to for estimating
the layer coefficients of bituminous materials: (1) a
power law relating layer coefficient to the resilient
modulus; and (2) the use of Odemark’s equivalent
stiffness hypothesis. The structural number is determined
as follows:
SNsa1D1qa2D2m2qa3D3m3 (1)

*Corresponding author. Tel.: q1-302-831-4532; fax: q1-302-831-

where ai is the layer coefficients of layer i, Di is the
3640. layer thickness of layer i, and mi is the drainage
E-mail address: okine@ce.udel.edu (N.O. Attoh-Okine). modifying factor for layer i.

0950-0618/02/$ - see front matter 䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 0 - 0 6 1 8 Ž 0 2 . 0 0 0 1 8 - 1
68 N.O. Attoh-Okine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 67–71
Fig. 1. AASHO road test: layer coefficient distribution.
The basic designing process then starts with the
determination of required structural numbers based on
the level of traffic. Trial pavement designs are then
identified by using different layer thickness criteria, and
providing adequate protection for underlying materials.
Unfortunately, Eq. (1) does not have a single solution.
There are many combinations of layer thickness that can
be used to achieve a given structural number. However,
there are several factors like construction and cost
constraints that limit the number of possible layer
thickness combinations and the possibility of construct-
ing impractical designs. Coree and White w2x presented
a comprehensive analysis of the layer coefficient and
structural number concept. The authors treated the layer
coefficient as a random number and presented a proba-
bilistic analysis of the structural number and concluded
that the present approach of structural number determi-
nation is not appropriate. Fig. 1 shows layer coefficient
distributions that were used in AASHO road tests for
the development of layer coefficients. The aim of this
paper is to use convex models in analyzing and inter-
preting the structural number for flexible pavement
design. Convex models provide a completely non-prob-
abilistic representation of uncertainties, and one does
not have to think in a stochastic manner to construct
them.
2. Convex models
Convex models of uncertainty was a method devel-
oped by Ben-Haim and Elishakoff w3x for addressing
uncertainties in structural systems. The convex model
of uncertainty is a set of functions specified by global
characteristics such as input load functions, spectral
properties, or functions of bounded energy. Therefore,
the convex models forces the uncertainty within a known
bound. Unlike the probabilistic approach of addressing
uncertainties, a space of conceivable events is defined
but with no probability measure. Rather, sets of allowed
events are specified, and the structure of these sets is
chosen to reflect available information as to what events
can and cannot occur. The convex model does not
require a probability distribution description of the
uncertain parameters and may be used to specify uncer-
tainties in the absence of detailed probability informa-
tion. The convex model requires less information about
the uncertain nature of the variables than do probability
methods. This makes the convex model an alternative
way to analyze uncertainty when a limited amount of
information is available.
Liu et al. w4x used the convex models to solve extreme
responses of static systems with unknown bounded
systems. The authors assumed the stiffness of the struc-
tural matrix to be uncertain, but bounded, and used it
as a convex ellipsoidal set rather than probabilities to
model the uncertainties. Pantelides w5x used convex
models to evaluate the buckling load of weightless
prismatic columns with uncertain rotational spring ele-
ments. Tzan and Pantelides w6x used the convex models
to analyze uncertainties in the maximum response of a
dynamic system to an impulsive load. Pantelides and
Ganzerli w7x, and Pantelides and Booth w8x used the
convex models as a design tool in optimal design of
structure with uncertainties.
Elishakoff et al. w9x used convex models to address
uncertain material properties for viscoelastic structures.
 N.O. Attoh-Okine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 67–71 69

The problem was focused on forced vibrations of vis- in the uncertainty of layer coefficients, the first order
coelastic beams. Elsefi and Nikolaidis w10x used convex analysis in z is:
models to address uncertainties in geometric imperfec-
n ≠SNŽan.
tions of stiffened composite panels. The authors used SNŽanqj.sSNŽan.q8 ji (8)
Monte Carlo simulation to validate their results. Lind- is1
≠ai
berg w11x used the convex model for multimode dynamic where an are the nominal values of the layer coefficients.
buckling of cylindrical shells with uncertain imperfec- The structural number was expanded in a Taylor series
tions under symmetric radial impulsive loads. In the (with only the linear terms). The first derivative of Eq.
Lindberg w11x approach, the uncertain deviation from (8) can be defined as vector:
perfect shape shells is represented in terms of the convex
set, R, of allowed functions and uses an extreme-pont w ≠SNŽa . ≠SNŽa2. ≠SNŽa3. z
D Ts x |
1
set, E, whose convex hull is R. , , (9)
For example, if one assumes that there is uncertainty y ≠a1 ≠a2 ≠a3 ~
in the asphalt layer coefficient and thickness, one can The lower limit of the structural number can be
represent the uncertainties in a two-dimensional ellipse. expressed by minimizing Eq. (8) using a convex model
For example, it is assumed that a1 and D1 vary within as in Eq. (7):
certain ranges; one can construct a convex model as
follows: SNŽa,v.s min wSNŽan.qDTßx (10)
jgzŽa,v.

aLFa1FaU; DLFD1FDU (2) where vs{v1, v2, v3 }. The minimum points will occur
where subscript L indicates the lower bound, and U is on a set of extreme points, Z (a, v), which is a
the upper bound. Let the nominal values of a1 and D1 collection of vectors, es{e1,«en }, in the following set:
be expressed as: B
e1 E B e2 E B e3 E
a1s0.5ŽaLqaU.; D1s0.5ŽDLqDU. (3) EŽa,v.s e:Cµ Fq C Fq C F
D v1 G D v2 G D v3 G ∂ (11)
The deviation between the upper and lower values of The magnitude of the ‘uncertainty parameter’, deter-
the asphalt layer coefficient and thickness can be mines the range of uncertain variation. This parameter
expressed as follows: is often unknown, so E(a, v) becomes a nested set.
Da1s0.5ŽaUyaL.; DD1s0.5ŽDUyDL. (4) Each set is formulated as a collection of all elements
and is consistent with a given body of initial data w12x.
Eq. (2) can be expressed in terms of the modulus of The minimum structural number is:
uncertainties as:
SNŽa,v.s min wSNŽan.qDTex (12)
a1sa0qja1; D1sD0qjD1 (5) jgzŽa,v.

The modulus of uncertainties is assumed to be bound- Let V be defined as a 3=3 diagonal matrix whose
ed as follows: 1
non-zero elements are equal to , (is1,2,3). From Eq.
)ja1)FDa1; )jD1)FDD1 (6) vi
(11) the equality constraints can be restated as follows:
Eq. (6) describes a rectangle, which can be enclosed
within the following elliptical domain of uncertainty: CŽe.seTVeya2s0 (13)
Žja yba .2qŽjD ybD .2F1
1 1 1 1
(7) One can define Hamiltonian as follows:
where ba1 and bD1 are the semi-axes of the ellipse. The HŽe.sDTeqlCŽe. (14)
evaluation of the semi-axis of the ellipsoid can be where lsLagrange multiplier constant. The necessary
accomplished using three different methods, Pantelides condition for an extremum of H are:
and Garzerli w7x: the minimum volume method; the
minimum surface method; and the minimum semi-axis ≠H
sDq2lVes0 (15)
summation method. ≠e
≠H
3. First order analysis seTVeya2 (16)
≠l
This problem involves the determination of the min- The solution for the values of extreme points at which
imum and optimum structural numbers for flexible the structural number is minimum is obtained as follows:
pavement design. If one defines a function, SN(a, D,
m), to represent the structural number for flexible 1 y1
esy V D (17)
pavement design, assuming that one is more interested 2l
70 N.O. Attoh-Okine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 67–71

Fig. 2. Uncertainty region.

Substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (13) yields the value Drainage coefficient of sub base layer (m3) s0.70
of the Lagrange multiplier as follows: Using the AASHTO w1993x w14x procedure, the min-
1 T y1 imum required thickness for the asphalt layer is 6.7
l2s D V D (18) inches, base thickness of 7.7 inches, and minimum sub-
4a2 base thickness of 19.4 inches. Using Eq. (1), SN(an)s
the minimum values of e from Eq. (17) can be found: 5.2374 and D Tsw1, m2, m3xsw1, 0.80, 0.70x. In most
cases, the SN(an) obtained is adjusted to change the
eVy1D thickness to whole numbers. Therefore, the final struc-
emins" (19)
yDTVy1D tural number for flexible pavement design can either be
less or more than the SN(an). In the present example,
The structural number for first order analysis can be
assume that the values of uncertainty axis are VsI,
expressed as follows:
then:
SNŽa,v.sSNŽan."ayDTVy1D (20) SNŽa,v.s5.2374"a1.46 (21)
To use Eq. (20) effectively, the pavement engineer Fig. 2 shows the uncertainty response of the structural
should have a fair estimate of a. This is analogous to number. The choice of a is not entirely a technical
knowing standard deviation magnitudes w5x. decision; it also involves qualitative evaluation of
acceptable levels of risk. Ben-Haim and Elishakoff w3x
4. Numerical example presented general guidelines. When as0, the problem
reduces to an initial structural, numerical computation
Using the values of layer coefficients and thickness without any adjustments.
presented in the National Highway Institute Training
Manual (1994) w13x: 5. Concluding remarks
The paper illustrates the description and computation
Asphalt concrete layer coefficient (a1) s0.42
Base layer coefficient (a2) s0.14 of pavement structural systems with unknown-but-
Sub-base layer coefficient (a3) s0.10 bounded, parameters. The approach differs from tradi-
Drainage coefficient of base layer (m2) s0.80 tional probability applications in that probability density
 N.O. Attoh-Okine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 67–71
functions and other information are needed. The present
convex model approach is based on available informa-
tion and data.
The convex model can be applied to many pavement
design problems in a manner similar to probability and
reliability methods. The approach requires less infor-
mation than competing methods, such as probability
analysis. The convex model method is very easy to
implement and will be more attractive to practicing
engineers.
References
w1x Attoh-Okine NO, Roddis KWM. Pavement thickness variabil-
ity and its effect on determination of moduli and remaining
life. Transportation research record, no. 1449. National
Research Council, 1994. 39–45.
w2x Coree JB, White TD. AASHTO flexible pavement design
method: fact or fiction. Transportation research record, no.
1286. National Research Council, 1990. 206–216.
w3x Ben-Haim Y, Elishakoff I. Convex models of uncertainty in
applied mechanics. Elsevier Publications, 1990.
w4x Liu ZS, Chen SH, Han WZ. Solving the extremum of static
response for structural systems with unknown-but-bounded
parameters. Comp Struct 1994;50(4):557 –61.
71
w5x Pantelides CP. Buckling of elastic columns using convex model
of uncertain springs. ASCE J Eng Mech 1995;121(7):837 –44.
w6x Tzan S, Pantelides CP. Convex models for impulsive response
of structures. ASCE J Eng Mech 1996;122(6):521 –9.
w7x Pantelides CP, Ganzerli S. Design of trusses under uncertain
loads using convex models. ASCE J Struct Eng
1998;124(3):318 –29.
w8x Pantelides CP, Berkeley CB. Computer-aided design of optimal
structures with uncertainty. Comp Struct 2000;74:293 –307.
w9x Elishakoff I, Elisseeff P, Glegg SA. Non-probabilistic, convex-
theoretic modeling of scatter in material properties. AIAA J
1994;32(4):843 –9.
w10x Elseifi MA, Gurdal Z, Nikolaidis E. Convexyprobabilistic
models of uncertainties in geometric imperfections of stiffened
composite panels. AIAA J 1999;37(4):468 –74.
w11x Lindberg HE. An evaluation of convex modeling for multimode
dynamic buckling. J Appl Mech 1992;59:929 –36.
w12x Ben-Haim Y. Set-models of information-gap uncertainty: axi-
oms and an inference scheme. J Franklin Institute
1999;336:1093 –117.
w13x AASHTO. AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures.
Washington, DC, USA: American Association of State and
Highway and Transportation Officials, 1993.
w14x AASHTO. AASHTO design procedures for new pavements.
1994. NHI course no. 13128.