CENG 6302 Ch2 Pav Perf & Early Design

7/22/2012
CENG 6302
PAVEMENT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
CHAPTER 2 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE
AND EARLY DESIGN
Alemgena Alene, PhD, MSc. BSc.
Email: alemgena@yahoo.com
Department of Civil Engineering

Ethiopian Institute of Technology (EiT) – Mekelle
Mekelle University
7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch3 MU-EiT
CENG 6302 Pavement Analysis & Design

Course content
Chapter Title
Ch1 Introduction
Ch2 Pavement Performance and Early Design
Ch3 Stresses and Strains in Flexible Pavements
Ch4 Loads on Pavements (ESA)
Ch5 Principle of Probabilistic Design Approaches
Ch6 Design for Rehabilitation and Upgrading
Ch7 Overview of Rigid Pavement Design
Ch8 Overview of Small Element Pavement Design
Ch9 Drainage and Road Embankment Design
Overview
1
7/22/2012
Pavement performance
• Pavements are designed to provide a safe and
comfortable driving surface to the public.
• Designed and constructed

• To provide such surface for long time
• At lowest possible costs
Thickness design and material selection should be

• Major defect types are under control
• Do not appear too early
Pavements are Designed to Fail !!

(in a predictable way)
ASPECTS OF DESIGN
Functional Structural
Can sustain
Safety Riding Quality
Traffic Load
2
7/22/2012
Structural Performance
Strength
Functional Performance
Safety
Comfort
RUDIMENTARY DEFINITION
Pavement Thickness Design is the determination of required

thickness of various pavement layers to protect a given soil
condition for a given wheel load.
Given Wheel Load
830 kPa
Asphalt Concrete Thickness?
Base Course Thickness?
Subbase Course Thickness? 25 kPa
Given In Situ Soil Conditions
3
7/22/2012
2.1. Major defect types on flexible

pavements
Cracking
• Different reasons to occur
• Traffic load associated
• Thermal movement or other
• Reflective cracking
Fig. Addis – Gohatsion

Wheel path load associated
cracking
• Low temperature cracking

Minnesota
• Reflective cracking in an
overlaid jointed concrete
pavement
4
7/22/2012
• Many reasons other than

traffic and temperature
• Fig. longitudinal cracking

due to shear failure in the
existing embankment as a
result of widening the road
Deformation /Rutting/
• Rutting in asphalt
pavements (Awash –Mille)
• Longitudinal deformation
due to settlements (near
Delft University)
5
7/22/2012
• Rutting due to overloading
Rutting, wheel path

cracking
Shoveling
Edge cracking and

deformation
Pothole
6
7/22/2012
Effects of Moisture Penetration in

Shoulder
7
7/22/2012
Effect of moisture
and unsealed
shoulder
2.2. Early design systems

• Design systems developed earlier, before the M-E design,
are still used in may countries including Ethiopia
• These are also bases for the development of M-E

systems used nowadays
• Strength of the pavement

solely depends on the shear
strength of the materials used
(lack of bearing capacity)
8
7/22/2012
Early design and Road tests

• Road tests
• Observed performance under actual condition – final
criterion to judge adequacy of a design method
• Three major road tests under controlled condition by
HRB mid-1940s to early 1960s
• Maryland Road Test ~ 1952 (1.76 km)

• To determine the relative effects of four different axle
loadings on a particular concrete pavement
WASHO Road Test ~ 1954
• Two identical test loops

each 580 m tangent
• 100 mm HMA on 50 mm
crushed gravel base
• 50 mm HMA on 100 mm
crushed gravel base
• Subbase 0, 100, 200, 300 and
400 mm
9
7/22/2012
• Major findings
• Pavement damage increased in the order:
80 kN single axle => 142 kN tandem => 100 kN single => 178 kN tandem
• Pavement with 100 mm HMA was far superior than 50 mm HMA for equal
total thickness
• Distress in the outer wheelpath was more than in the inner wheelpath.
Surfacing of shoulders proved to be highly effective
• Distress was largely critical on wet seasons
• Based on distress, a tandem axle with 1.5 times load is equivalent to the
single-axle load, where as a tandom axle produced equal max deflection
with 1.8 times a single axle load
• Deflection under traffic was influenced by: vehicle speed, surface temp,
load and moisture content of the top layers of basement soil
• No significant difference b/n wheel loads transmitted in the outer
wheelpath and inner wheelpath due to crown of the pavement
AASHO Road test ~ 1958

• Objective - to determine any relationship between no. of
repetitions of specified axle loads of different magnitude
and the performance of different thickness of flexible and
rigid pavements
• 6 different loops
10
7/22/2012
AASHO Road Test
Flexible Sections
• HMA
• Thickest section
• 1 to 6 inches thick
• 6 inches HMA
• 9 inches base
• Base Course • 16 inches subbase
• Used for heavy loads
• 0 to 9 inches thick
• 2.6 to 3.6 PSI at test end
• Thinnest section
• Subbase Course • 1 inch HMA
• 0 to 16 inches thick • Used for light loads
• 8 to 25 ESALs to failure
11
7/22/2012
One Subgrade...
A-6 / A-7-6 (Clay)

Poor Drainage
Major findings
• Main contribution was the development of pavement
serviceability concept together with the equations
relating serviceability, load and thickness design of both
flexible and rigid pavements.
• Superiority of base materials in order

Bituminous treated => cement treated => crushed stone => gravel
Most of sections with gravel base failed very early in the test
• About 91% of rutting occurred in the pavement it self
• Most surface cracking as well as deflection occur during

cold season
12
7/22/2012
Mn road
LCPC - France
13
7/22/2012
LINTRUCK - NL
14
7/22/2012
The CBR Design Method

• Early design systems
• based on determining the required thickness of good quality layers
• to prevent shear failure to occur in the subgrade
• Thickness was dependent on shear resistance and amount of
traffic
• This was the basis for the CBR thickness design method
• In the CBR design charts:

• Traffic load – no. of commercial vehicles per day
• Shear resistance of materials – CBR values
Principle of the CBR design charts
15
7/22/2012
Assess soil strength
Calculate thickness of cover

material required to reduce stresses
below critical levels
Choose material for cover which

is itself strong enough to
withstand load stresses
CBR DESIGN
1 Calculate subgrade stresses for 5
tonne axle load for the design
z
thicknesses in the empirical chart

Subgrade stress
2 For 10 tonne wheel, calculate

thickness to limit stresses to same
values
z1
10 tonne axle
5 tonne axle
t1 t2 Thickness
16
7/22/2012
CBR DESIGN
CBR
Plot revised design chart for
10 tonne axle
10 tonne
5 tonne
t1 t2 Thickness
CBR DESIGN METHOD

1500
Wheel load
(tonnes)
20
1000
15
Thickness
(mm) 10
5
500
2.5
Minimum
thickness
3 5 10 20 30 40 60 80
CBR %
17
7/22/2012
2.3. AASHTO Design Method

AASHTO Pavement Design Guide
• Several versions:
• 1961 (Interim Guide)
• 1972
• 1986
• Refined material characterization
• Version included in Huang (1993)
• 1993
• More on rehabilitation
• More consistency between flexible, rigid designs
• Current version
• 2002
• Under development
• Will be based on mechanistic-empirical approach
• With the rapid increase in number and weight of

vehicles, a strong need arise for improved
methods
• Most significant development of the AASHO test

is the pavement serviceability concept together
with the equations relating serviceability, load and
thickness design of both flexible and rigid
pavements.
18
7/22/2012
Basic Equations
Basic Idea
p0
Serviceability (PSI)
p0 - pt
pt
Time
PRESENT SERVICEABILITY INDEX
PSI = 5.0 - a.log R - b.RD2 - c.(C+P)½
5 R = roughness
RD = rut depth
C+P = cracking + patching
4 PSI
PSI 3 Traffic
2
* Failure
1
Traffic
19
7/22/2012
ROAD DETERIORATION
Change in PSI per vehicle depends on:
• Axle load
• Pavement thickness
• Time of year
But, on the same pavement, at the same time of year:-
4.5
 PSI1 = L1
 PSI2 L2
Using an 8.2 tonne axle as standard

4.5
L
 PSIL = X  PSI8.2
8.2
Number of equivalent axles
PRESENT SERVICEABILITY INDEX
PSI = 5.0 - a.log R - b.RD2 - c.(C+P)½
R = a measure of roughness
RD = rut depth
C+P = area of cracking + patching
a, b and c are constants therefore this equation assumes that

the relative importance of the three defects is always the same
The Roughness term is much more important than the others
Therefore, provided the road is still fairly smooth, there can be a

lot of cracking, for example, but still a high value of PSI.
Do you think it is a good idea to use PSI to trigger maintenance
20
7/22/2012
STRENGTH OF PAVEMENT
h1, h2, h3 etc. are the thicknesses of layers 1, 2, 3, etc.
Strength = Overall thickness = h1 + h2 + h3 + .......
But surface is strong,

Roadbase is of intermediate strength, and
Sub-base is relatively weak
So we multiply each thickness by a

weighting factor e.g.
Strength = 2h1 + h2 + 0.5h3
This is effectively what was done
STRUCTURAL NUMBER (SN)
SN = a1 h1 + a2 h2 + a3 h3 + ....
Where a1 , a2 , a3 etc. are strength coefficients for

layers 1, 2, 3, etc. and
h1 , h2 , h3 , etc. are the thicknesses of layers 1, 2, 3
The strength coefficients are related to

normal strength measures such as CBR,
unconfined compressive strength,
Marshall stability, etc.
21
7/22/2012
Strength a2 = {29.14 (CBR) - 0.1977 (CBR)2

coefficient + 0.00045 (CBR)3} x 10-4
(a2)
0.15
0.14 •
•
0.10
0.08
•
0.05
0 40 50 100 110 150
CBR value
STRENGTH COEFFICIENT, a2 FOR GRANULAR BASE MATERIALS
Strength
coefficient
(a3)
0.150
•
0.125
•
0.100
0.075
0.050 •
a3 = 0.01 + 0.065 (log10CBR)
0.025
1 5 10 50 100 200
CBR of sub-base
STRENGTH COEFFICIENT, a3 FOR SUB-BASE MATERIALS
22
7/22/2012
0.30 a2 = (750 + 386x - 8.83x2) x 10-2
x in MN/m2
0.25
•
Strength
coefficient 0.20
(a2)
0.15 •
a2 = (750 + 2.66x - 0.00042x2) x 10-4
0.10 x in lbf/in2
•
0.05
0 200 400 600 800
lbf/in2
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

MN/m2
STRENGTH COEFFICIENT, a2 FOR CEMENT-STABILIZED BASE MATERIALS
REGIONAL FACTOR - R
CLIMATIC EFFECTS ARE ALLOWED FOR BY APPLYING
A REGIONAL FACTOR (R) TO THE TRAFFIC LOADING
CLIMATE ARID AASHO WET
R 0.4 1.0 2.0
TRAFFIC x 106 5.0 2.0 1.0
NO GUIDANCE WAS GIVEN TO THE SELECTION OF R,

THIS
USUALLY BEING LEFT TO ‘ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT'
23
7/22/2012
Exercise
50mm AC 50mm AC
145mm 165mm
CBR = 130 CBR = 100
335mm 315mm
CBR = 20 CBR = 30
WHICH PAVEMENT WILL CARRY

THE MOST TRAFFIC?
CALCULATION OF STRUCTURAL NUMBER
25mm premix a1 = 0.4

100mm premix a1 = 0.4
200 mm, a2 = 0.14

875 mm a2 = 0.08
(crushed stone)
(gravel CBR = 40%)
Subgrade CBR = 8%
Subgrade CBR = 8%
SN = (0.4 x 4) + (0.14 x 8) = 2.72 SN = (0.4 x 1) + (0.08 x 35) = 3.20
24
7/22/2012
EQUIVALENT THICKNESS De, INCHES

45
x
40 x x x x
xx x
35 x x
x
x x x
x
x x x x
x x x x
30 x x xx x
x x
25 x
x x x
x x
x x x x x
20
15 x
10 x
x
0
103 104 105 106 107 108
WEIGHTED EQUIVALENT ESA APPLICATIONS
AASHO "DESIGN" EQUATION COMPARED WITH DATA
Reliability (ZR, S0)


 
Reliability = P [Y > X] PY  X    x x f y  y dy  dx
f  x 
X = Probability distribution of stress Y = Probability distribution of strength
(e.g., from loading, environment, etc.) (variations in construction, material, etc.)
Probability
Stress/Strength
25
7/22/2012
BASIC AASHTO METHOD
1 ESTIMATE TRAFFIC LOADING IN EQUIVALENT STANDARD AXLES

2 MULTIPLY TRAFFIC BY REGIONAL FACTOR
3 ESTIMATE SUBGRADE STRENGTH (now as an elastic modulus)
4 SELECT SERVICEABILITY LOSS
METHOD THEN RECOMMENDS A STRUCTURAL NUMBER, SN
SN = a1 . h1 + a2 . h2 + a3 . h3
h1 h2 h3 are thicknesses of each layer in inches

a1 a2 a3 are strength coefficients
The design equation

 PSI 0  PSI f 
Log10  
Log W8.2  Z .S0  9.36.Log10 SN  1  0.20   4.2  1.5   2.32.Log M  8.07
10 R
1094
0.4 
SN  15.19
Where Z = Normal deviate eg Z = -1.65 for 95% reliability,

= -1.04 for 85% reliability.
S0 = Standard error of traffic prediction and
performance prediction, typically in the range 0.4 - 0.5
SN = Structural Number
PSI0 = Initial PSI
PSIf = Final PSI
MR = Resilient modulus of subgrade
26
7/22/2012
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AASHO ROAD TEST

CONDITIONS AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES
• No freeze-thaw cycle
• Large axle loads
• Higher temperatures, different diurnal range
• Design traffic much greater than 2x106 esa
• Different structures
• Different materials
• Traffic is very mixed
• Tyre pressures now much higher
• Tyre types different
• Changes in vehicle design
27
7/22/2012
2.4. ORN 31 / ERA

OVERSEAS ROAD NOTE 31
A GUIDE TO THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN
BITUMEN-SURFACED ROADS IN TROPICAL
AND SUB-TROPICAL COUNTRIES, 1993
and
ETHIOPIAN ROADS AUTHORITY

Pavement Design Manual
Vol. I Flexible Pavements, 2002
BASIC PRINCIPLES
• Limit the subgrade stresses to a 'safe'
level
• Ensure that pavement layers themselves

do not deteriorate to any significant
extent in a specified period of time
28
7/22/2012
SCOPE
• Traffic up to 30 million esa
• 8 basic pavement structures
• Extensive advice on materials and
techniques (unbound, cemented,
bituminous)
• Consideration on range of climates
KEY FACTORS
• Influence of tropical climates on the moisture
conditions in the subgrade
• Influence of tropical climates on the nature of
soils and rocks
• High axle loads and tyre pressures
• Severe conditions imposed on the bituminous
surface by tropical climates
• Inter relationship between design and
maintenance
29
7/22/2012
BASIS FOR THE DESIGNS

• Full scale design and performance experiments
carried out by TRL in some tropical countries
• Performance studies of as-built networks
• Empirically based performance models
(Highway Design Model III)
• Theoretical / mechanistic analysis
GRANULAR BASE
Surface Dressing
Reseal at 15% Damage
Structural Number
7
3500 BI
4
4000 BI
3 4500 BI
5000 BI
0.1 1 10 100
ESA / millions
Chart 1, Subgrade S4, 15 Year Period

Roughness Analysis
30
7/22/2012
GRANULAR BASE
Surface Dressing
No Maintenance
Structural Number
7
3500 BI
6
4000 BI
4500 BI
5
5000 BI
0
0.1 1 10 100
ESA / millions
Chart 1, Subgrade S4, 15 Year Period

Roughness Analysis
THE DESIGN PROCESS

• Estimate traffic
• Assess strength of subgrade
• Select most economical combination of pavement
materials and thicknesses that will provide satisfactory
service over the life of the pavement
Maintenance is always required
31
7/22/2012
CONTENTS
ORN31 ERA
2 Traffic estimates 2 Traffic estimates
3 Subgrade strength 3 Subgrade strength
4 Embankments and 4 Embankments and
cuttings cuttings
5 Drainage and shoulders 5 Drainage and shoulders
6 Unbound materials 6 Unbound materials
7 Cement and lime- 7 Cement and lime-
stabilised materials stabilised materials
8 Bitumen-bound materials 8 Bitumen-bound materials
9 Surface treatments 9 Surface treatments
10 Structure catalogue 10 Structure catalogue
11 Design of Gravel roads
Wearing course
Surfacing
Basecourse or binder course
Roadbase
Sub-base
Subgrade
32
7/22/2012
ESTIMATING EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE CONTENT
CATEGORY 3
No permanent water table
Arid climate
Rainfall < 250mm pa
Design Moisture Content is the moisture

content of soil at same depth as the pavement
thickness

CATEGORY 2
Deep water table but rainfall sufficient to
produce seasonal changes under the road
Rainfall >250mm pa. per year and seasonal
Estimate using either
• Optimum moisture content from BS standard
compaction test
• CBR/soil type/water-table depth relationship
33
7/22/2012
CBR - MOISTURE CONTENT

100
B.S. heavy
Sample Nos.
1
50 2
3
4
CBR Proctor
20
%
10
Opt.2
Opt.1
5
15 20 25 30
Moisture content
Estimated design subgrade strength class under

sealed roads in the presence of a water table
Subgrade strength class

Depth of water
table* from Non-plastic Sandy Sandy Silty Heavy
formation level sand clay clay clay clay
(metres) PI=10 PI=20 PI=30 PI>40
0.5 S4 S4 S2 S2 S1
1 S5 S4 S3 S2 S1
2 S5 S5 S4 S3 S2
3 S6 S5 S4 S3 S2
* The highest seasonal level attained by the water table
34
7/22/2012

CATEGORY 1
Water table sufficiently close to the surface
to control the subgrade moisture content
(This depends on the type of soil)
• Existing road method - depends on PI

Moisture content = constant
Plastic limit
• CBR/soil type/water-table depth relationship
• Suction method
Subgrade strength classes

Range
Class
(CBR %)
S1 2
S2 3-4
S3 5-7
S4 8-14
S5 15-29
S6 30
35
7/22/2012
Traffic Classes Range

(106 esa)
T1 < 0.3
T2 0.3-0.7
T3 0.7-1.5
T4 1.5-3.0
T5 3.0-6.0
T6 6.0-10
T7 10-17
T8 17-30
Running surface Shoulder Side drain
CL
2
1
6
8
Extended roadbase and sub-base
1 Impervious surfacing
2 Shouders surface dressed (giving contrasting texture to running surface)
5 Impervious sub-base carried across full width of construction
6 Formation and sub-base constructed with cross fall of 1 in 30 (providing drainage
path for any water that enters and also a thicker and stronger pavement on the
outside wheel track)
8 Roadbase extending through shoulder
36
7/22/2012
Running surface Shoulder Side drain
CL
2
1 4
7
5
6
3
Separate shoulder material
1 Impervious surfacing
2 Shouders surface dressed (giving contrasting texture to running surface)
3 Roadbase extending under shoulder for at least 500mm
4 Shoulder material capable of supporting occasional traffic
5 Impervious sub-base carried across full width of construction
6 Formation and sub-base constructed with cross fall of 1 in 30 (providing drainage
path for any water that enters and also a thicker and stronger pavement on the
outside wheel track)
7 Drainage layer of pervious material
UNBOUND MATERIALS
Code Description Summary of specification
GB1,A Fresh, crushed rock Dense graded, unweathered crushed
stone, non-plastic parent fines
GB1,B Crushed rock, gravel or boulders Dense grading, PI < 6, soil or

parent fines
GB2,A Dry-bound macadam Aggregate properties as for GB1,B

(see text), PI < 6
GB2,B Water-bound macadam Aggregate properties as for GB1,B

(see text), PI < 6
GB3 Natural coarsely graded granular Dense grading, PI < 6

material including processed and CBR after soaking > 80
modified gravels
GS Natural gravel CBR after soaking > 30
GC Gravel or gravel-soil CBR after soaking > 15
37
7/22/2012
SEVERE CONDITIONS FOR

BITUMINOUS SURFACINGS
• High maximum temperatures
• Very heavy axle loads
• Very channelled traffic
• Stopping or slow moving heavy vehicles
Properties of cement and lime-stabilised materials
Unconfined compressive
Code Description strength*
(MPa)
CB1 Stabilised roadbase 3.0 - 6.0
CB2 Stabilised roadbase 1.5 - 3.0
CS Stabilised sub-base 0.75 - 1.5
* Strength tests on 150 mm cubes
38
7/22/2012
Guide to the type of stabilisation likely to be effective
Soil properties
Type of More than 25% passing the Less than 25% passing the
0.075 mm sieve 0.075 mm sieve
stabilisation
PI  6
PI  10 10<PI20 PI > 20 PI  10 PI > 10
PP  60
Cement      
Lime    No  
Lime-Pozzolan   No   
 Indicates that the agent will have marginal effectiveness

PP = Plasticity Product
CHOICE OF CHART
• the likely level and timing of maintenance
• the probable behaviour of the structure
• the experience and skill of the contractors and the

availability of suitable plant
• the cost of the different materials that might be used
• other risk factors
39
7/22/2012
Summary of material requirements

for the design charts
CHART REFER TO
SURFACING ROADBASE
NO CHAPTERS
1 Double surface T1-T4 use GB1, GB2 or GB3 6 and 9

dressing T5 use GB1,A or GB1B
T6 must be GB1 A
2 Double surface T1-T4 use GB1, GB2 or GB3 6, 7 and 8

dressing T5 use GB1
T6, T7, T8 use GB1A
3 ‘Semi-Stru' asphalt T1-T4 use GB1 or GB2 6 and 8

T5 use GB1
T6 use GB1A
4 “Semi-Stru" asphalt T1-T4 use GB1 or GB2 6, 7 and 8

T5 use GB1
T6-T8 use GB1A
5 Wearing course GB1,A 6 and 8
and basecourse
6 Wearing course GB1 or GB2 6,7 and 8

and basecourse
7 High quality single RB1, RB2 or RB3 8 and 9

seal or double seal
for T4. "Flexible"
asphalt for T5-T8
8 Double surface CB1, CB2 7 and 9

dressing
40
7/22/2012
KEY TO STRUCTURAL CATALOGUE
Traffic classes Subgrade strength classes

(106 esa) (CBR%)
T1 = < 0.3 S1 = 2
T2 = 0.3 - 0.7 S2 = 3,4
T3 = 0.7 - 1.5 S3 = 5 -7
T4 = 1.5 - 3.0 S4 = 8 - 14
T5 = 3.0 - 6.0 S5 = 15 - 29
T6 = 6.0 - 10 S6 = 30 +
T7 = 10 - 17
T8 = 17 - 30
Material Definitions
Double surface dressing
Flexible bituminous surface
Bituminous surface
(Usually a wearing course, WC, and a basecourse, BC)
Bituminous roadbase, RB
Granular roadbase, GB1 - GB3
Granular sub-base, GS
Granular capping layer or selected subgrade fill, GC
Cement or lime-stabilised roadbase 1, CB1
Cement or lime-stabilised roadbase 2, CB2
Cement or lime-stabilised sub-base, CS
CHART 1 GRANULAR ROADBASE / SURFACE DRESSING
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
SD
SD
SD 225
SD SD 200
SD 200
S1 150 200
150
300 * 325 *
225 * 200 250 *
175
300 300 300 300 300 300
SD
SD
SD 225
SD SD 200
S2 SD 200
150 200
150
275 * 300 *
200 175 225 *
150
200 200 200 200 200 200
SD
SD
SD 225
S3 SD SD 200
SD 200
150 200
150
325 350
200 250 225 275 * * *
SD
SD
SD 225
S4 SD SD 200
SD 200
150 200
150
250 275
175 150 200
125
SD
SD
S5 SD 250
SD SD SD 225
200
150 150 175
125 150 175
100 100 100
S6 SD
SD SD
SD SD SD
200 225 250
150 150 175
* A cement or lime-stabilised sub-base may also be used
41
7/22/2012
CHART 2 COMPOSITE ROAD BASE (UNBOUND & CEMENTED) / SURFACE DRESSING
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
SD
SD SD
SD SD 150 150 150
SD SD 150
S1 150 150
125
150 125
200 225 275
150 175 150 175
300 300 300 300 300 300 300
SD
SD SD
SD 150
SD SD 150 150
S2 SD 150
150 150 125
125 125
200 250
150 150 175 125 175
200 200 200 200 200 200 200
SD SD
SD 150
SD 150 150
S3 SD SD 150
SD 150 125
125 125 125
175 225
150 150 125 150
150
100 125 125 150 150 150 150
SD
SD SD
S4 SD 150
SD SD 150 150
SD 150 150
125 125 125
125
200 250
150 175 175 125 175
SD
S5 SD SD 150
SD SD 150
SD SD 150 150
125 125 150
200 250
125 125 125 150 175
SD
S6 SD 150
SD SD 125
SD SD SD
175 200 225 175
150 150 150
CHART 3 GRANULAR ROADBASE / SEMI-STRUCTURAL SURFACE
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
50
50
50 200
50 175
175
S1 175
300 * 325 *
200 250*
300 300 300 300
50
50
50 200
50 175
S2 175
175
225 * 275 * 300 *
175
200 200 200 200
50
50
50 200
S3 50 175
175
175
275 * 325 * 350 *

225
50
50
50 200
S4 50 175
175
175
200 250 275 *
150
50
S5 50 50
50 175 200
150 175
100 125 150 175
S6
50 50
50 50
150 175 200 225
42
7/22/2012
CHART 4 COMPOSITE ROADBASE / SEMI - STRUCTURAL SURFACE
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
50 50
50 50
50 50 150 150
150 150
S1 150 150
125 125 150
200 250
175 125 150 150
300 300 300 300 300 300
50 50
50 50
50 50 150 150
S2 150 150
150 150
125 150
125
175 200 225
125 150 150
200 200 200 200 200 200
50 50 50
50 150
50 50 150 150
S3 150
150 150 150
125
200 250
150 150 125 125
125 150 150 150 150 150
50 50
50 50
S4 50 150 150
50 150 150
150 150 150
125
175 225 250
150 150 150
50 50
S5 50 50 150
50 50 150
150 150
125 150 125
175 225
125 125 150 125
50 50
S6 50
50 50 100 150 150
50
150 175 200 150 150 150
CHART 5 GRANULAR ROADBASE / STRUCTURAL SURFACE
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
150
125
100
250
200 225
S1
225 * 225 250
350 350 350
150
125
100
250
200 225
S2
225 * 225 250
200 200 200
125 150
100
S3 250
200 225
250 250 275
150
125
100
S4
200 225 250
175 175 175
150
125
S5 100
200 225 250
100 100 100
S6 150
125
100
200 225 250
43
7/22/2012
CHART 6 COMPOSITE ROADBASE / STRUCTURAL SURFACE
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
125 150
100
150 150
150
S1 125
200 250
125
350 350 350
125 150
100
S2 150 150
150
125
200 250
125
200 200 200
125 150
100
S3 150 150
150
175 200 225
125 125 125
125 150
S4 100
150 150
150
175 200 225
100 125 150

S5
150 150 150
150 150 150
S6 100 125 150

100 100 100
150 150 150
CHART 7 BITUMINOUS ROADBASE / SEMI-STRUCTURAL SURFACE
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
50
50 50
SD 50 200
125 150 175
150
S1
200 225 * 225 * 225 * 250 *
350 350 350 350 350
50
50 50
SD 50 200
S2 125 150 175
150
200 225 * 225 * 225 * 250 *
200 200 200 200 200
50 50
S3 50
SD 50
150 175 200
150 125
250 250 275 * 275 * 275 *
50 50
S4 50 50
SD 200
125 150 175
150
175 200 200 200 200
S5 50 50
SD 50 50
150 150 175 200
125
125 125 125 125 125
S6
50 50
SD 50 50
150 150 175 200
125
44
7/22/2012
CHART 8 CEMENTED ROADBASE / SURFACE DRESSING
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
SD SD
SD
SD SD 200
SD 200 200
S1 150 175
150
175 175 200 225 250
150
350 350 350 350 350 350
SD
SD
SD SD 200
SD SD 200
S2 150 175 200
150
225 275
150 175 175 175
225 225 225 225 225 225
SD SD
SD
SD SD SD 200
S3 200 200
150 150 175
175 200 225
150 150 150
125 125 125 125 125 125
SD
SD
SD 200
S4 SD 200
SD SD 200
150 150 175 200
100 150
150 150 150 100 100 100
SD SD
S5 SD 200
SD SD SD 200
175
150 150 175
150 175 200
100 100 100
S6 SD
SD SD
SD SD SD
200 225 250
150 150 175
COMPARISON OF DESIGN METHODS

FOR CBR SUBGRADE = 8%
STRUCTURAL NUMBER
4.0
AASHTO
FRENCH SHELL 1 (AC)

3.0 ROAD NOTE 29
SHELL 2 (SD)
OLD ASPHALT
INSTITUTE
2.0 AUSTRALIAN
ROAD NOTE 31
1.0
0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
TRAFFIC esa.106
45
7/22/2012
ERA 2011 – Still under revision & finalization, not yet

official
• Major improvement?? /difference/
• Introduction of analytical/ semi-mechanistic/
• Traffic increased up to 80 MESA
• Content Ch. 1 – 10 same as 2002 only minor changes
• Change on appendix such as

• Appendix D – Introduction to Superpave
• Appendix G – Recycling of Bituminous Materials
• Appendix H – Theoretical Verification of Design Charts etc.
The design criteria adopted for the theoretical verification of

ORN 31 / ERA 2002
The asphalt fatigue criterion developed in Australia

• The fatigue law for asphalt is:
 6918  0.856  Vb  1.08
5
N   
   S mix 0.36 
where Vb = proportion of bitumen by volume in the
mixture in %
Smix = elastic modulus of mixture in MN/m 2
με = horizontal microstrain in the asphalt
N = number of strain repetitions to failure
The subgrade strain criterion developed in Australia

7
 9300 
• The Australian criterion is: N   
  
46
7/22/2012
Material characteristics for mechanistic analysis

Material Parameter Value Comment
A balance between a value
appropriate for high ambient
Asphaltic concrete wearing Elastic modulus (MPa) 3000 temperatures and the effect of ageing
course and binder course and embrittlement
Volume of bitumen 10.5%

Elastic modulus (MPa) 3000
Asphaltic concrete roadbase
Volume of bitumen 9.5%
Granular roadbase Elastic modulus (MPa) 300 For all qualities with CBR > 80%
Poisson’s ratio 0.30
Granular sub-base Elastic modulus (MPa) 175 For CBR ≥30%
Capping layer Elastic modulus (MPa) 100 For CBR ≥15%=
Subgrades Elastic modulus in MPa Poisson’s ratio for all subgrades was
S1 28 assumed to be 0.4
S2 37
S3 53
S4 73
S5 112
S6 175
Hydraulically stabilised Elastic modulus (MPa) CB1 = 3500 Poissons ratio assumed to be 0.25
material CB2 = 2500
The modulus of CS is assumed to
CS =1500
decrease with time hence a
conservative low value of 1000MPa
has been used
Comparison ERA 2002 vs. 2011

CHART 5 GRANULAR ROADBASE / STRUCTURAL SURFACE CHART C: HMA SURFACE, UNBOUND GRANULAR ROADBASE
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
Subgrade
class 1.5 – 3.0 3–6 6 – 10 10 – 17 17 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 80
150
100 125
225 250 225 250

200 180 200
S1 125 150 165
225* 225 250 200 200 225 225
S1 200 200 200
200 200 225 225 225 225

350 350 350 200
250 275 275 300 300 300 300

150
100 125
200 225 250

200 225 250
S2 165 180
125 150
225* 225 250 S2 200 200 225 225
200 200 200
200 200 200 175 175 175 200 200 200 200
175 175 175 200 200 200 200

125 150
100
S3 250 225 250
200 225 180 200
125 150 165
S3
250 250 275 200 200 200 200 200 225 225
200 200 200 200 200 200 200

125 150
100
S4 250
200 225 250
125 150 165 180 200 225
S4
175 175 175 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
125 150
S5 100
200 225 250 S5 165 180 200 225 250
125 150
100 100 100 175 175 175 175 175 175 175
S6 125 150
100 250
S6 125 150 165 180 200 225
200 225 250
150 150 150 150 150 150 150
47

CENG 6302 Ch2 Pav Perf &amp; Early Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

CENG 6302 Ch2 Pav Perf &amp; Early Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/22/2012

Department of Civil Engineering

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch3 MU-EiT

CENG 6302 Pavement Analysis & Design

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

• Designed and constructed

Thickness design and material selection should be

Pavements are Designed to Fail !!

Pavement Thickness Design is the determination of required

Given In Situ Soil Conditions

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

2.1. Major defect types on flexible

Fig. Addis – Gohatsion

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

• Low temperature cracking

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

• Many reasons other than

• Fig. longitudinal cracking

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

• Rutting due to overloading

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

Rutting, wheel path

Edge cracking and

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

Effects of Moisture Penetration in

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

2.2. Early design systems

• These are also bases for the development of M-E

• Strength of the pavement

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

Early design and Road tests

• Maryland Road Test ~ 1952 (1.76 km)

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

WASHO Road Test ~ 1954

• Two identical test loops

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

AASHO Road test ~ 1958

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

AASHO Road Test

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

A-6 / A-7-6 (Clay)

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

• Superiority of base materials in order

• About 91% of rutting occurred in the pavement it self

• Most surface cracking as well as deflection occur during

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

The CBR Design Method

• In the CBR design charts:

7/22/2012 Alemgena Alene, PhD CENG6302 - Ch2 MU-EiT

Principle of the CBR design charts

Assess soil strength

Calculate thickness of cover

Choose material for cover which

thicknesses in the empirical chart

2 For 10 tonne wheel, calculate

CBR DESIGN METHOD

CENG 6302 Ch2 Pav Perf & Early Design

CENG 6302 Ch2 Pav Perf & Early Design