Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design
Guide –Based Pavement Design Catalog
for Low-Volume Roads in Arkansas
Qiang Li, Danny X. Xiao, and Kevin D. Hall
Historically, low-volume roads in Arkansas were typically constructed by
use of a standard section, that is, a double surface treatment over a spec-
ified thickness of granular base. Subsequent analysis indicated that these
sections were structurally inadequate in many cases. In recent years, the
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department has invested
significant research dollars to implement the Mechanistic–Empirical Pave-
ment Design Guide (MEPDG), which is widely believed to be a quantita-
tive leap over the 1993 AASHTO design guide. However, the MEPDG
research efforts mostly target high-volume roads. In this paper, a design
catalog for low-volume roads (LVRs) in Arkansas was developed with
MEPDG software, Version 1.10. The catalog offers a variety of feasible
design alternatives for a comprehensive combination of site conditions.
The factors considered include the five geographical regions in Arkansas
and the typical Arkansas load spectrum for LVRs with three traffic lev-
els, three subgrade types, and six potential aggregate types available in
Arkansas that can be used as granular base and surface layer aggregates.
All the MEPDG design inputs needed for the development of the design
catalog are generated on the basis of the variety of previous MEPDG
implementation research conducted in the state of Arkansas. It is antici-
pated that the design catalog will serve as a simplified and rational design
process for the LVRs in Arkansas.
The 3 million miles of low-volume roads (LVRs) under the control of
more than 35,000 local government agencies in the United States con-
stitute 70% of roadway mileage but carry only 15% of all traffic (1).
Rural states such as Arkansas generally have a large number of miles
of LVRs. According to the Arkansas State Highway and Transporta-
tion Department (HTD), the state has approximately 160,000 mi of
LVRs carrying less than 500 vehicles per day (2). Although the daily
traffic volume is relatively low, these roads can carry significant lev-
els of heavy traffic, such as traffic from the trucking, agriculture, and
logging industries, and the potential for unsatisfactory performance is
high (2). Unfortunately, design and performance issues related to
LVRs have gained only limited attention, and the need for a solid
pavement design procedure is highlighted.
Historically, LVRs were not a primary focus of the transportation
industry; public and official scrutiny was concentrated on the higher-
Q. Li, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, 301
DuPont Hall, Newark, DE 19716. D. X. Xiao and K. D. Hall, Department of Civil
Engineering, 4190 Bell Engineering Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,
AR 72701. Corresponding author: Q. Li, qli@udel.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2203, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2011, pp. 169–177.
DOI: 10.3141/2203-21
169
volume, higher-classification roads, such as Interstate highways and
primary state highways. AASHTO developed a pavement design
procedure for LVRs that is similar to its design procedure for higher-
volume roads, as detailed in the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pave-
ment Structures (3). A survey conducted at the University of
Arkansas revealed that 37 of the 48 states in the continental United
States, including the state of Arkansas, design their LVRs using
the AASHTO design method (2). The LVR procedure used by
AASHTO (3) is essentially the same as the corresponding procedure
for high-volume pavements. For LVRs, design charts for flexible
pavements are similar to those for highway pavement design, but the
input requirements have been simplified and methods are provided to
estimate some input values required for design to allow local agencies
the option of using standard inputs for design. As a result, local LVRs
were typically constructed by use of a standard section, such as a
double surface treatment over a specified thickness of granular base
material. However, as the LVRs began to deteriorate, it was apparent
that these standard sections were often inadequately designed (2).
The approach featured in the NCHRP Project 1-37A Mechanistic–
Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) uses principles of engi-
neering mechanics to estimate stresses and strains induced in a given
pavement structure; transfer functions relate these stresses and strains
to estimates of pavement damage over time (4). MEPDG integrates
the response of pavement performance to three categories of input
influence: climate, traffic, and pavement materials. It is widely
believed that the new MEPDG procedure represents a big leap for-
ward when it is compared with the procedure in the current (1993)
AASHTO guide. The Arkansas HTD has invested significant research
dollars and other resources toward the implementation of MEPDG,
ranging from sensitivity analysis of the design inputs to material test-
ing, development of a master plan, and database support. However,
all the efforts are focused on high-volume roads.
The objective of the study described in this paper was to develop a
comprehensive LVR design catalog suitable for the state of Arkansas.
This paper documents the results of an exhaustive literature review of
research projects on the implementation of MEPDG in Arkansas and
applies the results to LVR design in Arkansas. Various climatic con-
ditions, traffic levels, materials, and subgrade types are considered
during the development of the design catalog.
LOW-VOLUME ROAD DESIGN METHOD
IN ARKANSAS
Arkansas uses the 1993 AASHTO design procedure for all pavement
design, including LVRs. The initial serviceability is 4.5 and the ter-
minal serviceability is 2.5 for both flexible and rigid pavements. The
170 Transportation Research Record 2203

standard deviations are 0.45 for flexible designs and 0.35 for rigid TABLE 1 Performance Criteria Used to Derive the Design Catalog
designs. The reliability level is assumed to be 75%. In general, the
structure of a 2-in. (5-cm) asphalt concrete (AC) hot-mixture surface Pavement Type Performance Indicator Criterion
course over a 7-in. (17.5-cm) aggregate base course is widely used. Flexible Smoothness, IRI 200 in./mi (3.16 m/km)
This is the minimum structure, and it keeps costs at a minimum. Wheelpath rutting 0.60 in. (15 mm)
Rigid pavement has seldom been used for LVRs because of the cost. Fatigue cracking 45% of wheelpaths
Rigid JPCP Smoothness, IRI 200 in./mi (3.16 m/km)
Joint faulting 0.15 in. (3.75 mm)
MEPDG LOW-VOLUME ROAD Slab cracking 45% slabs
DESIGN APPROACH
NOTE: JPCP = jointed plain concrete pavement.
Although the main focus of MEPDG is the design of high-volume
roads, it also provides recommendations for the rational design of developed by use of the MEPDG procedure. The catalog, however,
pavements for LVRs, which were developed and presented in the has significant drawbacks (5):
form of a design catalog. The catalog has the following features (4):
• The catalog was developed with one of the earliest versions of
• Traffic levels are high (750,000), medium (250,000), and low MEPDG software, which has been substantially revised. The catalog
(50,000) numbers of trucks or buses in the design lane for the entire does not correspond to the latest version of the MEPDG software.
pavement design life of 20 years. • The catalog was developed on the basis of national data sets.
• Environmental conditions are of the U.S. northern climate region However, Arkansas might have very different site conditions. It is
(northern Illinois and Indiana area) and southern climate region necessary to perform further analysis to achieve a practical design
(Atlanta, Georgia, area). procedure for local conditions in Arkansas.
• Three qualitative levels of subgrade soil modulus include good,
fair, and poor, which are well defined in the MEPDG technical report
IDENTIFICATION OF MEPDG INPUTS
(4). Groundwater table levels of 8 ft (2.4 m) and 40 ft (12 m) are
assumed in wet and dry regions, respectively. FOR ARKANSAS LOW-VOLUME ROADS
• The performance criteria, or the maximum allowable distress
Climatic Inputs
indicators and smoothness for the flexible and rigid pavement designs,
are based on the criteria in Table 1. The initial international roughness The land area within Arkansas can be divided into five geographical
index (IRI) is assumed to be 100 in./mi for LVR construction. regions on the basis of the Arkansas Statewide Long-Range Inter-
• Designs are based on a level of reliability of 50% or 75%. modal Transportation Plan (6): Ozark Plateaus (Ozark region),
Arkansas River Valley, Ouachita Mountains (Ouachita region), West
The NCHRP Project 1-37A catalog provides a highly informative Gulf Coastal Plain (West Gulf region), and Mississippi Alluvial Plain
and practical guide on the details of the design recommendations (Delta region), as shown in Figure 1. For each geographical region,

MISSOURI
Harrison ARKANSAS Mountain Home

Springdale OZARK Blytheville

Fayetteville PLATEAUS
Jonesboro
E
SE
ES
NN

ARKANSAS RIVER
TE

West Memphis
Fort Smith VALLEY Russellville
MISSISSIPPI
ALLUVIAL PLAIN
OKLAHOMA

OUACHITA Little Rock

Mount IDA MOUNTAINS
Hot Spring
Pine Bluff
PI
SIP
SIS

Monticello
MIS

WEST GULF COASTAL PLAIN

Physiographic
province boundary
Texarkana

El Dorado Political boundary

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

= Pavement Design Location = Weather Station Location

FIGURE 1 Geographical regions in Arkansas, design locations,

and weather station locations.
Li, Xiao, and Hall 171

one representative design location was selected to develop the cata-
log of the low-volume pavement structures. These five locations
chosen are Fayetteville in the Ozark region, Fort Smith in the River
Valley region, Hot Spring in the Ouachita region, El Dorado in the
West Gulf region, and Jonesboro in the Delta region.
The MEPDG software identifies 16 weather stations for Arkansas
from the National Climate Data Center database through the MEPDG
software. The geographical information for these stations is pre-
sented in Table 2. For each selected design location, only the cli-
matic stations falling into that geographical region are used to
generate the climatic input file for MEPDG design for this site. The
mean annual air temperature, the mean annual rainfall, and the aver-
age annual number of freeze–thaw cycles for these five locations are
obtained from the MEPDG analysis summary files and are presented
in Figure 2.
• The hourly truck distribution used to adjust the truck volume
throughout the day: 8.3% of total truck traffic for each hour between
6 a.m. and 5 p.m. and 0% from 6 p.m. to 5 a.m.;
• Monthly adjustment factors used to specify the monthly varia-
tion of the annual truck traffic for a given truck class: it is found that
the monthly factors are high in the harvest season and low in winter
for the agriculture region. For TTC 12, the monthly adjustment fac-
tors from January to December are 0.91, 0.94, 1.05, 1.10, 1.09, 0.87,
1.05, 1.20, 1.08, 0.96, 0.89, and 0.86, respectively. The monthly
factors are plotted in Figure 3;
• Design speed: 35 mph (56 km/h); and
• Other factors: use the default values in the MEPDG software.
The same three traffic levels (high, medium, and low) defined in
the NCHRP Project 1-37A report (4) are used in this study.

Traffic Inputs Aggregate Sources

The Arkansas HTD operates 79 automated traffic data collection sites,
among which 55 data collection sites are based on weigh in motion
(WIM). Hall and Tran used the WIM data sets and developed traffic
inputs for the implementation of MEPDG in Arkansas (7). Seven
truck traffic classes (TTCs), a new concept proposed in MEPDG (4),
are identified for the state of Arkansas, including TTCs 3, 6, 7, 9, 10,
12, and 13, among which only Class 12 is applicable to LVRs. Thus,
TTC 12 data are used to generate the following traffic inputs for
catalog development in this paper:
• Percent trucks in the design direction: 50;
• Percent trucks in the design lane: 100;
• Annual average daily truck traffic (AADTT) distribution by
vehicle class to specify the percentage of each truck class (Class 4 to
Class 13) within the AADTT: Truck Classes 5, 6, 8, and 9 account for
45.5%, 13.0%, 13.6%, and 27.9% of the traffic stream, respectively.
The distribution of the truck vehicle class is shown in Figure 3;
At present, LVRs in Arkansas are typically constructed with a stan-
dard structure: a surface layer over a granular base. Among the five
geographical regions in Arkansas, the West Gulf and Delta regions
are mostly composed of unconsolidated sediments, and these areas
have no bedrock suitable for crushed stone aggregate (8). The aggre-
gate types available in the Ozark, River Valley, and Ouachita regions
are listed in Table 3.
Two-thirds of the rock types in the northern Ozark region are dom-
inantly limestone and dolostone. The southern third is dominated by
shale, with some sandstone being found. However, sandstones in the
Ozark region either are too friable or are stratigraphically too thin for
production of durable aggregate. The limestones and dolostones are
the major components that have been quarried for crushed stone
aggregate in Ozark areas.
The rock types in the River Valley region are typically similar to
those in the southern part of the Ozark region, mostly shales and

TABLE 2 Climate Stations for Arkansas in MEPDG

Station Latitude Longitude

Identification City County (degree) (degree) Elevation (ft) Geographic Region

53869 Blytheville Mississippi 35.56 −89.5 259 Delta

93992 El Dorado Union 33.13 −92.49 254 West Gulf
93993 Fayetteville Washington 36.01 −94.1 1,247 Ozark
53922 Springdale Benton 36.17 −94.19 1,272 Ozark
13964 Fort Smith Sebastian 35.2 −94.22 480 River Valley
13971 Harrison Boone 36.16 −93.1 1,380 Ozark
3962 Hot Springs Garland 34.29 −93.06 535 Ouachita
3953 Jonesboro Craighead 35.5 −90.39 264 Delta
13963 Little Rock Pulaski 34.45 −92.14 292 At the convergence of
West Gulf, Ouachita,
and Delta
53919 Monticello Drew 33.38 −91.45 277 West Gulf
53921 Mount Ida Montgomery 34.33 −93.35 706 Ouachita
53918 Mountain Home Baxter 36.22 −92.28 915 Ozark
93988 Pine Bluff Jefferson 34.11 −91.56 207 Delta
53920 Russellville Pope 35.16 −93.05 382 River Valley
13977 Texarkana Miller 33.27 −94.01 394 West Gulf
53959 West Memphis Crittenden 35.08 −90.14 214 Delta

NOTE: 1ft = 0.30 m.

172 Transportation Research Record 2203

64 Two typical Arkansas hot-mix asphalt (HMA) gradations (coarse

and fine) are considered in the study to explore their influence on
62
the design catalog, and their corresponding volumetric properties
60 are given in Table 5.
58

56 Portland Cement Concrete Slab

54
The coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) is believed to be the most
Ozark River Valley Ouachita West Gulf Delta
sensitive input for rigid pavement design (10, 11). The Arkansas HTD
(a)
has sponsored a research project in which the primary objective is to
determine the CTEs of concrete materials in Arkansas and to recom-
60 mend guidance for the use of these inputs for future design purposes.
50 The testing program included 12 standard portland cement concrete
40 (PCC) mixtures that were designed by using the four major aggregate
types (limestone, sandstone, syenite, and gravel) used for rigid pave-
30
ment construction in Arkansas and three cementitious materials
20 (cement only, cement and 20% fly ash, and cement and 25% ground
10 granulated blast furnace slag) (11). It was concluded that the type of
0 coarse aggregate used in PCC mixtures significantly influenced the
CTEs and pavement performance predictions. Therefore, aggregate
Ozark River Valley Ouachita West Gulf Delta
type is the only influencing factor used to determine CTE inputs in the
(b)
MEPDG software for the development of the LVR design catalog in
this paper. The CTE testing data were obtained from this research
70 project, as shown in Table 6. Because dolostone, novaculite, and chert
60 were not tested in the research, MEPDG default values are used.
50 The other PCC properties used in this paper include a design
40
strength of 4,000 psi (27.56 MPa; The Arkansas HTD requires a min-
imum of 4,000 psi), a flexural strength of 580 psi (4 MPa), Type I
30
cement with a density of 500 lb/yd3 (296 kg/m3), joint spacing of 12 ft
20 (3.6 m), a 1-in. (2.54-cm) dowel diameter, dowel bar spacing of 12 in.
10 (30 cm), and no edge support condition.
0
Ozark River Valley Ouachita West Gulf Delta
(c) Granular Base

FIGURE 2 Climatic characteristics of the five design locations:
(a) mean annual air temperature (ⴗF); (b) mean annual rainfall (in.);
and (c) average annual number of freeze–thaw cycles.
silica-cemented sandstones. In comparison to the Ozark region, the
River Valley region has a higher density of normal faults. The system
of locks and dams along the Arkansas River is suitable for shipping
stone by barge to the east and the south.
The most widespread rock types suitable for crushed stone aggre-
gate in the Ouachita region include silica-cemented sandstone and
thick beds of microcrystalline silica, called novaculite (similar to chert).
Other resources include igneous syenite on Granite Mountain in the
Little Rock, Arkansas, area, which has long produced outstanding
aggregate, and much reserve remains. The location provides several
transportation advantages, being near the largest populated area of the
state, near rail lines, and near the Arkansas River.
AC Surface
The University of Arkansas also conducted simple index and resilient
modulus testing for typical aggregates in Arkansas, including five
Class 7 base samples and one Class 5 base sample (12). The five
Class 7 samples were from the Black Rock, Granite Mountain, Glen
Rose, Preston, and Sharps quarries and represent materials that are
widely used as base materials within the state of Arkansas. Correla-
tions between resilient modulus and the bulk stress applied have
been developed. Table 7 summarizes the index properties and the
resilient modulus models for the six base materials tested. To obtain
the bulk stress level of the layer so that the resilient modulus input for
MEPDG can be determined by use of the models in Table 7, KEN-
LAYER software, developed by Huang and Humphrey (13), was used
to calculate the bulk stress. If a typical pavement structure consisting
of a 6-in. (15-cm) AC surface layer with a resilient modulus of
400,000 psi (2,758 MPa) over 6 in. of granular base with a resilient
modulus of 20,000 psi (138 MPa) is assumed, the bulk stress at the
top of the base layer is about 20 psi. The bulk stress level of 20 psi
(0.14 MPa) is then substituted into the resilient modulus models, and
the typical resilient moduli inputs for the aggregates are obtained.

LTPPBind (9), a Windows-based software program developed by the

Long Term Pavement Performance program, is used to determine the Subgrade
most suitable and cost-effective Superpave® asphalt binder PG for
the five selected cities. The binder PG grades selected for each region In this paper, soils are classified into three groups indicating their
are summarized in Table 4. relative effectiveness as a subgrade.
Li, Xiao, and Hall 173

50

40

Distribution Factor (%)

30

20

10

0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

(a)

1.4

1.2
Adjustment Factor

0.8

0.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

(b)

FIGURE 3 Traffic inputs for TTC 12: (a) vehicle class distribution and
(b) monthly adjustment.

TABLE 3 Aggregate Sources in Arkansas • Group A, granular soils that drain well: sand, gravel, or a com-
bination of sand and gravel. These soils generally have AASHTO
Geographic Region Typical Aggregate Type soil classifications of A-1, A-2-6, A-2-5, A-2-4, and A-3; some A-4
soils fall into this category.
Ozark Plateaus Limestone
Dolostone • Group B: silty clays or lean clays. These soils retain considerable
Sandstone strength when they are wet. These are average subgrade soils and gen-
Arkansas River Valley Sandstone erally soils with AASHTO soil classifications of A-2-7 and A-4; some
Ouachita Mountains Sandstone A-5 and A-6 soils are in this group.
Novaculite and chert
Syenite (igneous rock)
TABLE 5 Typical HMA Mixtures in Arkansas

Coarse Fine

Cumulative percent retained, 3⁄4 in. sieve 12 0

TABLE 4 PG Grade from LTPPBinder Software
Cumulative percent retained, 3⁄8 in. sieve 38 18
City Geographic Region Binder Grade Cumulative percent retained, #4 sieve 50 47
Percent passing, #200 sieve 4 4.5
Fayetteville Ozark PG 64-22
Effective binder content (%) 11 12
Fort Smith River Valley PG 64-22
As-built air void (%) 6 6
Hot Springs Ouachita PG 70-22
Unit weight (lb/ft3) 148 148
Jonesboro Mississippi Plain PG 70-22 Binder grade PG 70-22 or
Texarkana Gulf Plain PG 64-22 PG 64-22
174 Transportation Research Record 2203

TABLE 6 CTE Values for PCC LOW-VOLUME ROAD PAVEMENT

DESIGN CATALOG
AHTD
Aggregate Source Aggregate Type MEPDG Range Value
Baseline Low-Volume Road Pavement Structures
Sharps Crushed limestone 3.4–5.1 5.2
The 1993 AASHTO design procedure was used to generate baseline
Black rock Crushed dolomite 5.1–6.4 5.8
pavement structures that could be used as a starting point for the devel-
Preston Crushed sandstone 5.6–6.5 6.4
opment of a design catalog with the MEPDG software. The design
Granite Mountain Crushed syenite — 5.2 traffic according to the cumulative 18-kip equivalent single-axle loads
Glen rose Crushed novaculite 6.6–7.1 6.9 (ESALs) on the design lane during the design period is obtained
Class 5 Gravel — 6.9 from the ESAL calculator provided in MEPDG software. The initial
serviceability is 4.5 and the terminal serviceability is 2.5 for both
NOTE: CTE values are in microstrain per degree Fahrenheit;
— = data not available. flexible and rigid pavements. The standard deviations are 0.45 for
flexible designs and 0.35 for rigid designs. The layer coefficients
were 0.44 for the HMA and 0.13 for the granular base. The drainage
• Group C: heavy clay soils. These soils lose most of their strength coefficient was set equal to 1.0 for all layers. The load transfer
when they are wet and have AASHTO soil classifications of A-5, coefficient (J ) was 2.8 with dowels. The elastic modulus of jointed
A-6, A-7-5, and A-7-6. plain concrete pavement slabs was 3,760,000 psi. The modulus of
rupture was 580 psi. The drainage coefficient was 1.0. For PCC pave-
In Arkansas, 20 soils that constitute a broad aerial coverage ment, the effective modulus of the subgrade reaction (k) is determined
(approximately 80%) of the surface soils found in the state of by use of the equation k = MR /19.4, where MR is the resilient modulus.
Arkansas were selected for simple index and repeated load testing. The typical thickness for an LVR granular base in Arkansas is 6 to
These soils were subjected to routine soil tests, such as tests for Atter- 8 in. Both thicknesses [6 and 8 in. (15 and 20 cm)] were tested by
berg limits; AASHTO soil classification; particle size analysis; and the 1993 AASHTO design procedure, and no structural difference
moisture–density to determine the liquid limit, plastic limit, optimum for the surface layer for both AC and PCC pavements was found.
moisture content, maximum dry density, percent fines, and percent Therefore, a 6-in. granular base was assumed for all the design
clay. Because of the complexity of the testing, resilient modulus is catalogs.
often estimated from a simple index test rather than measured. The By varying the design location, traffic levels, subgrade types, and
typical soil types and the data inputs are tabulated in Table 8. base materials, the surface thickness designed by use of the 1993

TABLE 7 Index Properties and Resilient Modulus Models for the Six Base Materials Tested

Resilient Modulus
Base Material Description Region PI (%) MDD (pcf) OMC (%) Fines (%) (ksi) × θ (psi)

Black rock Crushed dolomite Ozark 2.65 144 6.5 9.34 MR = 2.5983 × θ0.7081
(R2 = .8966)
Granite Mountain Crushed syenite Ouachita 7.87 134.2 7.4 8.8 MR = 2.7031 × θ0.6178
(R2 = .913)
Glen rose Crushed novaculite Ouachita 4.59 135 6 6.75 MR = 2.7815 × θ0.637
(R2 = .9507)
Preston Crushed sandstone River Valley and Ouachita — 134 7 8.6 MR = 1.1551 × θ0.7182
(R2 = .915)
Sharps Crushed limestone Ozark 4.42 141 5.5 9.47 MR = 5.6785 × θ0.5938
(R2 = .698)
Class 5 River run gravel South central Arkansas — 134.8 7 — MR = 4.1355 × θ0.4451
(R2 = .8391)

NOTE: Resilient modulus (MR) is in kips per square inch, and deviator stress (θ) is in pounds per square inch; Pl = plasticity index; MDD = maximum dry density;
OMC = optimum moisture content; — = data not available.

TABLE 8 Typical Soil Types and Design Inputs

Broad MR Range and Mean MR at

Subgrade Group Soils Typical AR Soils Optimum Moisture Content

Granular soils A-1, A-2-6, A-2-5, A-2-4, or A-3, A-1-b and A-2-6 15,000–30,000 psi
and some A-4 Selected value = 20,000 psi
Silty clays A-2-7, A-4, and some A-5 and A-6 A-4 and A-6 10,000–25,000 psi
Selected value = 15,000 psi
Heavy clay soils A-5, A-6, A-7-5, or A-7-6 A-6, A-7-5, and A-7-6 5,000–15,000 psi
Selected value = 10,000 psi
Li, Xiao, and Hall 175

TABLE 9 Pavement Thickness clay); and (d) six potential granular base materials (limestone,
Designed by Use of 1993 AASHTO dolomite, sandstone, syenite, novaculite, and gravel), which influence
Design Guide not only the resilient modulus of the base layer but also the CTE for
the PCC layer. The baseline structure generated by use of the 1993
Surface Layer
Thickness (in.) AASHTO design guide was reanalyzed by using the MEPDG soft-
ware. If the section passed all performance criteria, the surface thick-
Traffic Level Flexible Rigid ness was reduced by 0.5 in. and the process was repeated until the
structure failed to meet one of the performance criteria, in which case
High 4 6 the final design thickness was increased by 0.5 in. The most current
Medium 3 5 version of MEPDG software (Version 1.10) was used to conduct the
Low 2.5 4.0 analysis.
The design catalogs for the 30 combinations of site conditions
(five regions, three traffic levels, and three subgrades) are summarized
AASHTO design guide is found to be sensitive only to the traffic and presented in Table 10. The catalog was initially developed with
level. In other words, the design thickness remains the same, regard- limestone as the aggregate source. The design catalog should be
less of the changes of other inputs, which is against engineering wis- fine-tuned or adjusted when an aggregate other than limestone is
dom. The design results from the 1993 AASHTO design guide are used because other aggregate sources are available locally. The fine-
summarized in Table 9. In addition, the 1993 AASHTO design guide tune designs for different aggregates are documented in parentheses
provides only the designed thickness and no performance prediction. in Table 10. For example, if limestone is the aggregate used on a
It has been widely recognized for many pavements that the need for road constructed in the northern Ozark region with a high level of
rehabilitation because of, for example, rutting, thermal cracking, and traffic on a granular subgrade, the design of a structure of 6.5 in.
faulting, is not directly related to pavement thickness. Therefore, a (16 cm) of PCC over a 6-in. (15-cm) limestone granular base is
better design catalog is needed. adequate. However, if the road is constructed in the southern part of
the Ozark region and sandstone is the most economical aggregate
source, the structure should be adjusted to 7 in. (17.5 cm) PCC over
MEPDG Runs
a 6-in. (15-cm) sandstone granular base to meet the performance
Design Catalog requirements. It is found that in most cases the designs failed pre-
dominantly because of the percentage of slab that cracked for rigid
To develop a comprehensive design catalog, the following factors pavement or the total amount of wheelpath rutting for flexible pave-
were considered to generate a representation of various site condi- ments. In contrast, very little joint faulting for PCC pavement and
tions in Arkansas: (a) five representative cities in the five geographi- very little fatigue cracking for AC pavement are observed, regardless
cal regions (Fayetteville, Fort Smith, Hot Spring, El Dorado, and of the various site conditions. Further analysis shows that rutting
Jonesboro); (b) three traffic levels (high, medium, and low); (c) three failure is due to the excessive rutting from the base, especially when
subgrade types (A for granular soils, B for silty clay, and C for heavy a weak base layer exists, whereas the rutting in the AC and subgrade

TABLE 10 Comprehensive MEPDG-Based Design Catalog for LVR in Arkansas

Ozark River Valley Ouachita West Gulf Delta

Traffic
Level Subgrade Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid

High A 3-6a 6.5-6 3-6 7-6 3-6 6.5-6 3-6 6.5-6 2.5-6 6-6
(3, 4, 5, 6)b (3, 5, 6) (3, 4, 5, 6) (3, 4, 5, 6) (3, 5, 6) (3, 4, 5, 6) (3, 5, 6) (3, 4, 5, 6) (2, 3, 5, 6)
B 3-6 6.5-6 3.5-6 7-6 3-6 7-6 3-6 6.5-6 3-6 6.5-6
(3, 4, 5, 6) (3, 5, 6) (3) (3, 4, 5, 6) (3, 4, 5, 6) (2, 3, 5, 6) (3)
C 4-6 6.5-6 4-6 7-6 4-6 7-6 4-6 6.5-6 3.5-6 6.5-6
(3) (2, 3, 5, 6) (3, 4, 6) (3) (3, 4, 6) (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) (3, 6)
Medium A 2-6 5.5-6 2-6 6-6 2-6 6-6 2-6 6-6 2-6 5.5-6
(3, 6) (2, 3, 5, 6) (3, 6) (3) (3, 6) (3) (5, 6)
B 2-6 6-6 2-6 6-6 2-6 6-6 2-6 6-6 2-6 5.5-6
(3, 6) (3, 6) (3) (3, 6) (3) (3, 5, 6)
C 2.5-6 6-6 2.5-6 6-6 2-6 6-6 2.5-6 6-6 2-6 6-6
(3, 4, 6) (5, 6) (3, 4, 6) (3, 5, 6) (3, 4, 5, 6) (5, 6) (3, 4, 6) (3, 5, 6) (3, 4, 5, 6)
Low A 2-6c 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6
B 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6
C 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6

a
A catalog design of 3-6 represents 3 in. of surface layer over a 6 in. base layer. (1 in. = 2.54 cm.)
b
The catalog design is developed using limestone as the base material. If another type of aggregate is used, the surface layer thickness may need to be adjusted. The
codes for the aggregates are as follows: 1 = limestone, 2 = dolomite, 3 = sandstone, 4 = syenite, 5 = novaculite, 6 = gravel. A code in parentheses below the design
catalog represents the thickness of the HMA surface course or that the PCC slab needs to be increased with 0.5 when that type of aggregate is used as the base material
in the design. In this example, (3, 4, 5, 6) means that the design catalog should be adjusted to 3.5 + 6 when sandstone (3), syenite (4), novaculite (5), and gravel (6) base
materials are used. In contrast, the design catalog should remain 3 + 6 when limestone (1) and dolomite (2) base are used.
c
No parenthesis below the catalog design means that a universal catalog applies for all types of aggregates.
176 Transportation Research Record 2203

TABLE 11 Simplified MEPDG-Based Design Catalog for LVR in Arkansas

Ozark River Valley Ouachita West Gulf Delta

Traffic Level Subgrade Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid

High A 3.5-6a 7-6 3.5-6 7-6 3.5-6 7-6 3.5-6 7-6 3-6 6.5-6
B 3.5-6 7-6 4-6 7-6 3.5-6 7-6 3.5-6 7-6 3.5-6 6.5-6
C 4.5-6 7-6 4.5-6 7-6 4.5-6 7-6 4.5-6 7-6 4-6 6.5-6
Medium A 2.5-6 6-6 2.5-6 6-6 2.5-6 6-6 2.5-6 6-6 2.5-6 6-6
B 2.5-6 6-6 2.5-6 6-6 2.5-6 6-6 2.5-6 6-6 2.5-6 6-6
C 3-6 6.5-6 3-6 6.5-6 2.5-6 6.5-6 3-6 6.5-6 2.5-6 6-6
Low A 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6
B 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6
C 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6 2-6 5-6

a
A catalog design of 3.5-6 represents 3.5 in. of surface layer over a 6-in. base layer (1 in. = 2.54 cm).

layers is relatively constant: approximately 0.2 and 0.3 in., respectively.
The analysis results for the design catalogs are presented in Table 10,
which provides comprehensive combinations of designs and pro-
vides designers with a wide range of design alternatives that can be
adapted to local experience, available materials, available construction
equipment, and so on.
The catalog in Table 10 may be too complex for practical design.
Therefore, a simplified catalog is proposed in Table 11. If one of the
catalog structures in Table 10 does not satisfy the specified require-
ments for any of the six potential aggregate types, the thickness of
the surface layer is increased by 0.5 in. Designers have the freedom
to choose which catalog table to use for a routine design on the basis
of their experience and engineering judgment.
tion. However, this is a typical design structure in Arkansas, and a
change of the base layer thickness does not significantly influence the
surface layer thickness or pavement performance.
CONCLUSIONS
For a predominantly rural state such as Arkansas, it is of great
importance to have a robust LVR design procedure. Arkansas cur-
rently adopts the standard structure in the 1993 AASHTO design
0.7
Coarse
0.6
Total rutting, in.

Fine
0.5
Sensitivity Analysis
0.4
Some other factors might influence the design catalog. Two HMA 0.3
gradations (coarse and fine, as shown in Table 5) and two base thick- 0.2
nesses [6 and 8 in. (15 and 20 cm)] were studied and analyzed. The
0.1
design is located in the Ozark region. The influence of the HMA gra-
dation on total rutting and the terminal IRI is shown in Figure 4. It is 0
observed that the difference is not significant: about 3.7% for total
A

-A

-B

-C

-A

-B

-C
h-

h-

h-

h-

w
m

w
ig

ig

ig

ig

Lo

Lo

Lo
iu

iu

rutting and 0.5% for IRI. The influence of base thickness on pave-
iu
H

ed

ed

ed
M

ment performance was also explored, and the results are shown in
M

Figure 5. Pavements with an 8-in. base perform better than those with Traffic and subgrade
a 6-in. base. However, the benefits are marginal: decreases of about (a)
1.4% for total rutting and 0.3% for IRI.
165
Coarse
160
Limitations Fine
155
IRI, in./mi

Several assumptions are made to generate the inputs for the MEPDG
software on the basis of a variety of previous MEPDG implementa- 150
tion research projects. These assumptions may be different from 145
local conditions. However, the catalog developed can serve as a good
140
starting point for a simplified and practical design process.
The MEPDG software does not permit an analysis of concrete 135
pavements with a PCC slab thickness of less than 6 in. However, it
A

ed C

ed A

ed B
-C

-A

-B

-C
h-

h-

-
h-

h-

w
m

has been proved that in some cases a PCC thickness of less than 6 in.
ig

ig

ig

ig

Lo

Lo

Lo
iu

iu

iu
H

may provide acceptable performance. This study ignored this limita-

M

tion when the MEPDG software was used for the development of the Traffic and subgrade
design catalog. (b)
The base thickness used in this study was assumed to be 6 in. of
granular base for all designs, which may differ from location to loca- FIGURE 4 Influence of HMA gradation on pavement performance.
Li, Xiao, and Hall 177

0.7 REFERENCES
6” Base
0.6
Total rutting, in.

8” Base 1. Local Low-Volume Roads and Streets. Publication FHWA-SA-93-006.

0.5 FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nov. 1992.
0.4 2. Hall, K. D., and J. W. Bettis. Development of Comprehensive Low-
Volume Pavement Design Procedures. MBTC 1070 final report. Univer-
0.3 sity of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 2000.
0.2 3. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, Washington, D.C.,
1993.
0.1 4. ARA, Inc., ERES Consultants Division. Guide for Mechanistic–Empirical
0 Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Final report,
NCHRP Project 1-37A. Transportation Research Board of the National
A

M m-A

ed B
-C

-A

-B

-C
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004. http://www.trb.org/mepdg/
h-

h-

-
h-

h-

w
m

w
ig

ig

ig

ig

Lo

Lo

Lo
iu

iu

iu
guide.htm.
H

ed

ed
5. Khazanovich, L., I. Yut, S. Hussein, C. Turgeon, and T. R. Burnham.
M

M
Traffic and subgrade Adaptation of Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide for Design
of Minnesota Low-Volume Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. In
(a) Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 2087, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 57–67.
165
6. Arkansas Statewide Long-Range Intermodal Transportation Plan:
6” Base 2007 Update. Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Lit-
160
8” Base tle Rock, 2007.
155 7. Hall, K. D., and N. H. Tran. Projected Traffic Loading for AASHTO
IRI, in./mi

2002 Guide. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 2006.

150 8. Kline, S. W. Arkansas Resources for Crushed Stone Construction Aggre-
gate. Arkansas Technical University, Russellville, 1999.
145
9. LTPPBind software. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. http://
140 www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/ltpp/ltppbind.cfm. Accessed March 2010.
10. Nantung, T., G. R. Chehab, S. Newbolds, K. Galal, S. Li, and D. H. Kim.
135 Implementation Initiatives of the Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement
Design Guide in Indiana. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
A

-A

-B

-C

-A

-B

-C

the Transportation Research Board, No. 1919, Transportation Research

h-

h-

h-

h-

w
m

w
ig

ig

ig

ig

Lo

Lo

Lo
iu

iu

iu

Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 142–151.

H

ed

ed

ed

11. Tran, N. H., K. D. Hall, and M. James. Coefficient of Thermal Expan-

M

Traffic and subgrade sion of Concrete Materials: Characterization to Support Implementation

(b)
FIGURE 5 Influence of base thickness on pavement performance.
guide for LVR design. MEPDG presents a tremendous opportunity to
improve pavement design practices compared with those in the 1993
AASHTO design guide, which implements an integrated analysis
approach for predicting pavement condition over time.
This paper has developed a catalog of recommended design struc-
tures for Arkansas LVRs by using the MEPDG software (Version
1.10). The catalog offers a simplified and practical approach to LVR
design by providing a variety of acceptable design alternatives for a
comprehensive combination of site conditions (traffic, location, sub-
grade, and aggregate type). The design inputs for the MEPDG soft-
ware lay the foundation for the tremendous MEPDG implementation
research efforts in the state of Arkansas.
of the Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide. In Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2087, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 51–56.
12. Zhao, Y., and N. D. Dennis, Jr. Development of a Simplified Mechanis-
tic–Empirical Design Procedure for Low-Volume Flexible Roads. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1989, Vol. 1, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 130–137.
13. Huang, Y. H., and D. Humphrey. Pavement Analysis and Design, 2nd ed.
Prentice-Hall Professional, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2002.
The views expressed in this paper and the accuracy of the data and facts are the
sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official
views of the listed agencies. This paper does not constitute a standard, specifi-
cation, or regulation. Comments contained in this paper related to specific test-
ing equipment should not be considered an endorsement of any commercial
product or service; no such endorsement is intended or implied.
The Committee for the 10th International Conference on Low-Volume Roads
peer-reviewed this paper.