AP-T357-21 Technical Basis Guide To Pavement Technology Part 5

Technical Report
AP-T357-21
Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to

Pavement Technology Part 5: Pavement
Evaluation and Treatment Design
Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 5: Pavement Evaluation and
Treatment Design
Prepared by Publisher
Geoffrey Jameson Austroads Ltd.

Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Project Manager Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
James Allen
www.austroads.com.au
Abstract About Austroads

This report documents the technical basis of the 2011 and 2019 Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road
editions of Austroads’ Guide to Pavement Technology Part 5: transport and traffic agencies.
Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Design.
Austroads’ purpose is to support our member organisations to
Pavement evaluation and rehabilitation treatment design is an deliver an improved Australasian road transport network. To
integral part of managing a road network. Some roads require succeed in this task, we undertake leading-edge road and
strengthening treatments to carry future traffic. transport research which underpins our input to policy
development and published guidance on the design,
Austroads has provided guidance on the selection and design of construction and management of the road network and its
strengthening treatments to rehabilitate pavements for more than 30 associated infrastructure.
years. This report describes the development of methods to design
strengthening treatments such as granular overlay, asphalt overlays, Austroads provides a collective approach that delivers value
inlays and stabilisation treatment for flexible pavements. for money, encourages shared knowledge and drives
consistency for road users.
Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of senior
Keywords executive representatives from each of its eleven member
organisations:
pavement strengthening, overlays, stabilisation, design, rehabilitation
treatments, deflections, design modulus • Transport for NSW
• Department of Transport Victoria
• Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
ISBN 978-1-922382-72-6 • Main Roads Western Australia
Austroads Project No. APT6249 • Department for Infrastructure and Transport South Australia
Austroads Publication No. AP-T357-21 • Department of State Growth Tasmania
Publication date May 2021 • Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics

Northern Territory
Pages 42 • Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate,
Australian Capital Territory
• Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional
© Austroads 2021 Development and Communications
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the • Australian Local Government Association
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process • New Zealand Transport Agency.
without the prior written permission of Austroads.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 5: Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Design
Summary
Pavement evaluation and rehabilitation treatment design is an integral part of managing a road network.
Some roads require strengthening treatments to carry future traffic. For over 30 years Austroads has
provided guidance on the selection and design of strengthening treatments to rehabilitate pavements.
These methods were provided in the Pavement Design: a Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavements
(NAASRA 1987, Austroads 1992), Pavement Rehabilitation: a Guide to the Design of Rehabilitation
Treatments for Road Pavements (Austroads 2004a) and subsequently in the 1st edition of the Guide to
Pavement Technology Part 5: Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Design (Austroads 2008a). In the 2008
1st edition of Part 5, the design guidance was extended to cover lightly trafficked roads. The technical basis
for the structural design of asphalt and granular overlays in these publications and the 1987 NAASRA Guide
has been previously documented (Austroads 2004b, Austroads 2008a). In 2009 the 2nd edition of Part 5 was
published with updated pavement distress photographs.
Described in this report is the technical basis of the changes made to Part 5 in the 3rd edition
(Austroads 2011a) and the 4th edition (Austroads 2019a).
Concerning the empirical design of granular overlay thickness, two significant changes were made in the
4th edition, namely:
• improved guidance was provided on the calculation of characteristic deflection values
• procedures were developed for overlays to be designed from maximum deflections measured using the
Traffic Speed Deflectometer.
Note that details of the development of other aspects of this method are provided in Austroads (2004b,
2008b). Austroads (2004b) was superseded by Austroads (2008b), with all 2004 content replicated in the
2008 document.
In relation to the design of asphalt overlays, prior to the 4th edition a design chart method was provided in
addition to a general mechanistic procedure (GMP). In preparing the 4th edition in 2019 it was decided to
delete the chart-based method as its use was diminishing due to a number of limitations.
In the 2011 3rd edition, more detailed guidance was given about the design of pavement and subgrade
stabilisation strengthening treatments using the GMP, including the design of subgrade stabilisation
treatments and cementitious and bituminous stabilisation of existing pavement materials.
The 4th edition of Part 5 published in 2019 enhanced the GMP and the method was renamed the
mechanistic-empirical procedure (MEP) after deletion of the simplified design chart method for asphalt
overlays. An important aspect of the MEP is that it uses the same performance relationships to determine
allowable traffic loadings as used in the mechanistic-empirical method for the design of new pavements
(Part 2, Austroads 2017). An overarching objective of the changes made in the 4th edition of Part 5 was the
need to improve guidance on the determination of design moduli of existing pavement materials and
subgrade for use with these performance relationships.
The key changes to the MEP were:

• the method of calculating the allowable traffic loading of a strengthening treatment
• improved guidance on the back-calculation of moduli of existing pavement layers and subgrade
• in relation to the determination of subgrade design moduli, guidance was provided on the maximum
values
Austroads 2021 | page i

• guidance about the translation of back-calculated layer moduli to design moduli consistent with these
Part 2 methods
• provision of a method to determine the design moduli of existing bound materials from back-calculated
values considering the predicted modulus reductions due to fatigue damage during the design period.
Austroads 2021 | page ii

Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Empirical Design of Granular Overlays ............................................................................................... 3
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Calculation of Characteristic Deflections .......................................................................................... 4
2.3 Overlay Design Using Traffic Speed Deflectometer Deflections...................................................... 5
3. Flexible Pavement Treatment Design Using Mechanistic-Empirical Procedure ............................. 6
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Overview of MEP .............................................................................................................................. 7
3.3 Consideration of Strength Variability of Existing Pavements ........................................................... 9
3.4 Back-calculation of In situ Moduli ..................................................................................................... 9
3.4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.4.2 Austroads Back-calculation Algorithm ............................................................................... 10
3.4.3 Considerations of Modulus Variability ............................................................................... 10
3.4.4 Adjustment of Isotropic Moduli to Anisotropic Values ....................................................... 11
3.4.5 Guidance on Layer Thicknesses ....................................................................................... 13
3.5 Determining Design Moduli of Existing Pavement Layers and Subgrade ..................................... 15
3.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 15
3.5.2 Subgrade ........................................................................................................................... 16
3.5.3 Selected Subgrade Materials ............................................................................................ 18
3.5.4 Lime-stabilised Subgrade .................................................................................................. 19
3.5.5 Unbound Granular and Modified Granular Materials ........................................................ 19
3.5.6 Asphalt ............................................................................................................................... 20
3.5.7 Cemented Materials and Lean-mix Concrete .................................................................... 29
3.5.8 Foamed Bitumen Stabilised Materials ............................................................................... 30
3.6 Determining Design Moduli Foamed Bitumen Stabilised Materials ............................................... 30
3.6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 30
3.6.2 FBS Modulus Adjustment for Temperature ....................................................................... 30
3.6.3 FBS Modulus Adjustment for Rate of Loading .................................................................. 35
3.7 Performance Relationships ............................................................................................................ 37
4. Summary and Conclusions................................................................................................................. 39
References ................................................................................................................................................... 41
Austroads 2021 | page i

Tables
Table 1.1: Relevant reports describing the technical basis of the 2019 edition of Part 5 ............................ 2
Table 2.1: 2011 Guide recommended values of f ........................................................................................ 4
Table 2.2: 2019 Guide recommended values of f ........................................................................................ 5
Table 3.1: Case 1 representative moduli for treatment design using Methods A and B ............................ 10
Table 3.2: Case study of variation of back-calculated moduli with number of subgrade layers ................ 15
Table 3.3: Suggested maximum subgrade design modulus values .......................................................... 16
Table 3.4: Typical presumptive subgrade design CBR values .................................................................. 17
Table 3.5: Modulus reduction factors ......................................................................................................... 26
Table 3.6: Presumptive elastic characterisation of cracked cemented material and lean-mix
concrete..................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 3.7: Effect of temperature and loading rate on FBS indirect tensile modulus .................................. 31
Figures
Figure 3.1: Predicted deflection bowls using the calculated moduli for the two methods (Case 1) ............ 11
Figure 3.2: Example of difference in predicted FWD deflection bowls with isotropic and
anisotropic subgrade modulus characterisation........................................................................ 13
Figure 3.3: Comparison of the top subgrade vertical moduli determined from DCP results
and back-calculation ................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 3.4: Variation in back-calculated asphalt modulus with pavement temperature .............................. 20
Figure 3.5: Cracking severities, the outlined areas are 1 m2 area of trafficked pavement.......................... 21
Figure 3.6: Predicted variation of back-calculated asphalt modulus with temperature ............................... 22
Figure 3.7: Temperature adjustments of back-calculated asphalt modulus based on
cracking severity ....................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.8: Maximum design moduli assigned to existing asphalt layers ................................................... 24
Figure 3.9: Variation in back-calculated asphalt moduli with trafficking ...................................................... 25
Figure 3.10: Variation in back-calculated asphalt moduli with trafficking ...................................................... 27
Figure 3.11: Sound and crocodile cracked asphalt moduli ........................................................................... 28
Figure 3.12: Reduction in asphalt modulus associated with crocodile cracking ........................................... 28
Figure 3.13: Variation of indirect tensile modulus with temperature ............................................................. 32
Figure 3.14: Relationship between temperature and back-calculated FBS modulus ................................... 33
Figure 3.15: Variation of modulus with temperature ..................................................................................... 35
Figure 3.16: Variation of indirect tensile modulus with indirect tensile test rise time .................................... 36
Austroads 2021 | page ii

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
provided guidance on the selection and design of strengthening treatments to rehabilitate pavements.
In 1987 the Pavement Design: a Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavements (NAASRA 1987)
included a chapter on the design of granular and asphalt overlays building on the methods in the National
Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design.
The design of granular overlays was empirically based on Benkelman Beam design maximum deflections
(D0) and reductions in maximum deflections with overlay thickness. As limiting maximum deflections were
insufficient to inhibit fatigue cracking of asphalt overlays, a new approach was developed based on curvature
(D0-D200) and design charts. The development of this curvature method involved pioneering research on the
use of mechanistic pavement analysis and design which was beginning to be used for the design of new
flexible pavements.
By 2004, Austroads members had identified a need to provide more comprehensive guidance on all aspects
of pavement evaluation and treatment design for sealed pavements. Whilst the 1987 NAASRA Guide
empirical approach to the design of granular overlays was retained, improvements were made to the design
of asphalt overlays. Two design methods were developed and published in Pavement Rehabilitation
(Austroads 2004a):
• A chart-based method retaining the use of maximum deflections to design the strengthening requirement
to inhibit permanent deformation and enhanced curvature design charts to evaluate the fatigue
performance of a proposed asphalt overlay. This enhanced chart-based method improved the
consistency of structural evaluation with those used for the design of new pavements but was limited to
flexible pavements without cemented materials and a maximum design traffic loading of 107 ESA.
• A general mechanistic procedure (GMP) which was a mechanistic-empirical method similar to the design
of new pavements (Austroads 2017) except that it required the design moduli of existing pavement layers
and subgrade to be estimated. This method was applicable to all flexible pavement types and design
traffic levels.
These methods were provided in Pavement Rehabilitation (Austroads 2004a) and subsequently in the
1st edition of the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 5: Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Design
(Austroads 2008a). In the 2008 1st edition of Part 5, the design guidance was extended to cover lightly
trafficked roads. The technical basis for the structural design of asphalt and granular overlays in these
publications and the 1987 NAASRA Guide has been previously documented (Austroads 2004b,
Austroads 2008b). In 2009 the 2nd edition of Part 5 was published with updated pavement distress
photographs.
In the 2011 3rd edition of Part 5, detailed guidance was provided on the design of stabilisation strengthening
treatments using the GMP, including the design of subgrade stabilisation treatments and modified,
cementitious and bituminous stabilisation of existing pavement materials. Except for foamed bitumen
stabilisation, the design methods for these treatments were based on mechanistic-empirical method for the
design of new pavements (Austroads 2012), the technical basis of which has been reported
(Austroads 2021). Section 3.6 describes the technical basis of the design of foamed bitumen stabilisation
treatments adopted in 2011 and 2019 editions of Part 5. In regard to the design of other strengthening
treatments for flexible pavements (e.g. granular overlays, asphalt overlays), the procedures in the 2011
3rd edition of Part 5 were the same as provided in the 2008 1st edition. The technical basis of 2008 edition of
Part 5 of the Guide to Pavement Technology is documented in Austroads Technical Report AP-T99-08
(Austroads 2008b).
Austroads 2021 | page 1

In preparing the 2019 4th edition of Part 5 it was decided to remove the chart-based method of asphalt
overlay design as its use was diminishing due to its limitations mentioned above. More guidance was
provided on the use of the GMP, which was renamed as the mechanistic-empirical procedure (MEP). In
particular, improved methods of determining the design moduli of existing pavement layers and subgrade
were provided.
The purpose of this report is to detail changes to the design methods for pavement structural rehabilitation
treatments in the 2011 and 2019 editions of Part 5, namely:
• the current design procedures for granular overlays (Section 2)
• the mechanistic-empirical procedure (previously called the GMP) (Section 3).
In relation to the 2019 edition, Table 1.1 summarises those sections of the AP-T99-08 document that
contains the technical basis information that is still relevant as well as sections within this document that
contain changes that have been made since the publication of AP-T99-08 in 2008.
Table 1.1: Relevant reports describing the technical basis of the 2019 edition of Part 5
Technical basis
Section of 2019 edition of Part 5 (Austroads 2019a)
AP-T99-08 This document
9.2.3 Standardisation of deflections Sections 4.2 & 4.3 Section 2.3
9.2.4 Adjustment of deflections to account for the testing temperature Section 5.6 -
9.2.6 Calculation of characteristic deflections – Section 2.2
9.4 Design deflections Sections 2.2 & 4.1, –
Appendix A
9.5 Determination of granular overlay thickness Sections 2.4.1 & 4.4 –
10 Mechanistic-empirical procedure of designing strengthening – Section 3
treatments for flexible pavements
1.2 Scope
The scope of this report is limited to the changes in the 2011 and 2019 editions of Part 5. Austroads (2004b,
2008b) describe the technical basis of overlay design procedures in previous editions.
1.3 Methodology
This report is a collation of information contained in Austroads published reports, technical meeting minutes
together with the knowledge of the authors of Part 5.

2. Empirical Design of Granular Overlays
2.1 Introduction
Austroads (2004b, 2008a) describes the development of the empirical method for determining the thickness
of granular overlays as provided in the 1987 NAASRA Guide, Pavement Rehabilitation (Austroads 2004a)
and the 1st edition of the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 5: Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Design
(Austroads 2008a). There were no changes to this method in the 2nd and 3rd editions (Austroads 2009,
Austroads 2011a).
This section describes the following two changes to the method provided in the 4th edition of Part 5
(Austroads 2019a):
• a new method of calculating characteristic deflection (Section 2.2)
• a method to use traffic speed deflectometer (TSD) maximum deflections to design granular overlays
(Section 2.3).
These changes were guided by the Austroads Pavements Structures Working Group (PSWG), comprising:
• James Allen, Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales (convenor July 2018 – June 2019)
• Peter Bryant, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (convenor July 2017 – June 2018)
• Andrew Papacostas, VicRoads
• Jothi M Ramanujam, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
• Simon Kenworthy-Groen, Main Roads Western Australia
• David Alabaster, NZ Transport Agency
• Graham Hennessy, AustStab
• Erik Denneman, Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (AAPA)
• Greg Arnold, Civil Contractors, New Zealand
• Geoff Jameson, ARRB
• James Grenfell, ARRB
• Didier Bodin, ARRB, (PSWG secretary).
Note that details of the development of other aspects of this method are provided in Austroads (2008b) as
summarised in Table 1.1. In particular, this previous report should be consulted with respect to the technical
basis of the following aspects of the empirical method still relevant in the 4th edition of Part 5:
• the origins of the Benkelman Beam design deflections
• deflections standardisation factors for deflectograph and falling weight deflectometer
• reductions in maximum deflections with granular overlay thickness.

2.2 Calculation of Characteristic Deflections

The structural capacity of a pavement that requires an overlay typically varies both longitudinally and
transversely over the project length. Therefore, to design cost-effective overlays, it is usually necessary to
divide the project into sub-sections that have relatively uniform strength as determined from the measured
maximum deflections. To allow for the variation in pavement strength within each homogeneous sub-section,
a characteristic deflection (CD) is calculated defined as the value equal to the mean deflection (μ) plus a
factor f multiplied by the standard deviation (SD) (Equation 1).
Thus:
CD = μ + f × SD 1
where f is selected by the designer to provide a suitable level of probability of the characteristic value not
being exceeded by an individual value within the homogeneous sub-section assuming deflections are normal
distribution.
For over 30 years, the Austroads recommended f values were those given in Table 2.1. Where the number
of deflection measurements in a homogeneous sub-section was less than 30, Austroads (2011a) advised
‘the maximum deflection may provide a better CD value’.
Table 2.1: 2011 Guide recommended values of f
Percentage of all deflection

measurements in homogeneous sub-
Road class f*
section which is represented by the
Characteristic Deflection **
Freeway and arterials/highways with lane AADT > 2000 2.00 97.5
Arterials/highways with lane AADT < 2000 1.65 95
Other roads 1.30 90
* f values for 30 or more deflection measurements.
** After identifying areas to be patched/reconstructed.
Source: Adapted from Austroads (2011a).
In preparing the 2019 edition of Part 5, two issues were identified in relation to this procedure, namely:
• With the increasing use of FWD, it is not uncommon for the number of deflection measurements in a
sub-section to be less than 30. For instance, if FWD deflections are measured at 20 m spacings, the
sub-section length needs to be at least 600 m for the use of f values.
• The percentage of the sub-section length exceeding the CD should align with the extent of pavement
distress at the time the pavement is rehabilitated. Although Austroads (2017) does not define the extent
and severity of distress at the end of life, it was unlikely road agencies strengthen (other than minor
patching) heavily trafficked road sections when less than 5% of the length is distressed. This brings into
question, the use of a 95th percentile value or higher CD as recommended in Table 2.1.
The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR 2012) pavement rehabilitation manual
provided an f value of 1.28 for all road classes, this value is a 90th percentile value when there is a large
(> 30) number of deflections in a sub-section.

In the design of new thin bituminous surfaced unbound granular pavements, Austroads (2017) describes a
procedure for the determination of the subgrade design Californian Bearing Ration (CBR). Again, a
procedure is described to identify homogeneous sub-sections similar to the concepts used in analysis of
measured deflections. In relation to the variability of CBR values within sub-sections, Austroads (2017)
states:
The ten percentile level (i.e. 90% of results exceed this level) is commonly adopted for the
design of highway pavements. For roads in arid climates, or roads of lesser importance,
higher percentile values may be appropriate.
Considering the TMR use of the 90th percentile value and Austroads guidance in relation to calculation of
subgrade design CBR, for the 2019 edition of Part 5 PSWG agreed to adopt a 90th percentile value for all
road classes.
PSWG also agreed to provide recommended f values for 10 or more deflections in a sub-section (Table 2.2).
These f values assume deflections are normally distributed within a homogeneous sub-section. Where the
number of deflection measurements in a sub-section is less than 10, Austroads (2019a) advised ‘the
maximum deflection may provide a better CD value’.
Table 2.2: 2019 Guide recommended values of f
Number of deflection measurements* f*

10 1.38
12 1.36
14 1.35
16 1.34
19 1.33
24 1.32
≥ 30 1.31
* After identifying areas to be patched/reconstructed.
Source: Austroads (2019a).
2.3 Overlay Design Using Traffic Speed Deflectometer Deflections

Before the publication of the 4th edition of Part 5 (Austroads 2019a), the design method was limited to use of
maximum deflections measured using Benkelman Beam, deflectograph and falling weight deflectometer
(FWD).
In 2010, the traffic speed deflectometer (TSD) was first trialled in Australia and New Zealand. It became
more readily available after ARRB acquired a TSD in 2014 and commenced regular deflection surveys of
Australian and New Zealand roads.
The TSD measured responses to load are converted to an average deflection bowl every 10 m which at the
network level provides detailed and improved pavement strength data for asset management.
More recently, Bodin, Zhalehjoo and Garton (Austroads 2019b) investigated the feasibility of using TSD
measured maximum deflections for project-level granular overlay design. Regression analysis was used to
develop a relationship to predict FWD maximum deflections from TSD values using data measured on
Queensland and New Zealand roads. Using this relationship and the deflection standardisation factors (DSF)
for FWD (Austroads 2008a), a DSF of 1.2 was derived to estimate Benkelman Beam rebound deflections
from 50 kN TSD maximum deflections.
This DSF was included in the 2019 edition of Part 5 to enable the use of TSD deflections to design granular
overlays.

3. Flexible Pavement Treatment Design Using

Mechanistic-Empirical Procedure
3.1 Introduction
Austroads (2008b) describes the development of a chart-based asphalt overlay design procedure that was a
component of the 2004 Pavement Rehabilitation Guide and the 2008, 2009 and 2011 editions of Part 5. This
chart-based method had the following limitations:
• It was only applicable to flexible pavements without cemented materials.
• Maximum asphalt overlay thickness was 150 mm.
• Maximum design traffic loading was 107 ESA.
Because of these limitations, the 2004 Pavement Rehabilitation Guide and the 2008 and 2009 editions of
Part 5 included a general mechanistic procedure (GMP) for the design of strengthening treatments to all
flexible pavement types including those containing cemented materials. Note that the use of the name GMP
was used to differentiate the method from the simplified mechanistic-empirical (ME) design method
embodied in the chart-based method of asphalt overlay design. Austroads (2008b) provides the technical
basis of the GMP provided in the 2004 Guide, and the 2008 and 2009 editions of Part 5.
This section describes the technical basis of changes to the GMP incorporated in the 2011 3rd edition and
the 2019 4th edition of Part 5.
As the chart-based method was deleted from the 2019 edition, in the 2019 edition the name GMP was
changed to mechanistic-empirical procedure (MEP). The MEP provides the designer with the capability of
designing a broad range of strengthening treatments, including asphalt overlays, inlays, major patchings and
stabilisation of pavement layers and subgrade.
The 2011 edition provided detailed guidance on the design of stabilisation strengthening treatments and was
guided by the PSWG comprising:
• Allan Jones, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (convenor)
• Peter Bryant, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
• Peter Tamsett and Andreas Nataatmadja, Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
• Chris Mathias, Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure South Australia
• Ross Keeley, Main Roads Western Australia
• Greg White, AustStab
• Michael Moffatt, ARRB

The MEP development for the 2019 edition was guided by the PSWG, comprising:
• James Allen, Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales (convenor July 2018 – June 2019)
• Peter Bryant, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (convenor July 2017 – June 2018)
• Jothi Ramanujam, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
• Simon Kenworthy-Groen, Main Roads Western Australia
• David Alabaster, NZ Transport Agency
• Graham Hennessy, AustStab
• Erik Denneman, AAPA
• Greg Arnold, Civil Contractors, New Zealand
• James Grenfell, ARRB
In terms of the elastic characterisation and performance relationships of treatment materials, the MEP uses
the same values as used in the design of new pavements (Austroads 2017), the technical basis of which is
described in Austroads (2021). This section of the report is confined to the technical basis of the elastic
characterisation of existing pavement layers and the subgrade is described. However, Austroads procedures
have yet to be developed for the design of new pavements with foamed bitumen stabilised (FBS) materials,
hence the discussion also extends to the elastic characterisation (Section 3.6) and performance relationships
(Section 3.7) of FBS material as a treatment material.
3.2 Overview of MEP

The MEP for the design of strengthening treatments is, in principle, identical to the ME procedure for the
design of new pavements (Austroads 2017), except that there is an initial phase in which the properties of
the materials in the road-bed are determined.
For the design of new pavements, the Austroads ME method can be summarised in the following two
relationships (adapted from Potter et al. 1994):
Response-to-load model
Layer thickness + Material properties + Design traffic → Pavement response

(e.g. modulus) load (strains)
Performance prediction model
Material properties + Pavement response → Pavement performance

(strains) (allowable traffic loading)

To adapt the ME method for rehabilitation treatment design, a third relationship (termed an inverse response
model) may be used to allow the properties of the materials in the existing pavement to be estimated from
the measured surface deflections:
For existing pavement:
Inverse response-to-load model
Layer thickness + Deflection + Pavement response → Material properties

test load (deflection) (e.g. layer modulus)
For the treated pavement:
Response-to-load model
Layer thickness + Material properties + Design traffic → Pavement response

(including treatment) (including treatment) load (strains)
Performance prediction model (other than existing bound materials)
Material properties + Pavement response → Pavement performance

(including treatment) (strains) (allowable traffic loading)
In the MEP, asphalt overlays are designed to limit fatigue cracking of the overlay and permanent deformation
of the pavement. Unbound granular pavements with sprayed bituminous surfacings are designed only to limit
permanent deformation on the pavement surface.
Austroads methods have yet to be developed to estimate the remaining structural life of existing bound
materials (asphalt, cemented materials). In addition, bound materials within existing pavements could be
expected to have little or no remaining fatigue life when a structural treatment is being considered. Hence,
the MEP does not address the strengthening requirements to inhibit fatigue cracking of the existing bound
layers in the pavement. Strengthening treatments are designed to limit fatigue cracking in the bound
treatment materials and surface permanent deformation of the treated pavement.
As there can be a significant risk of cracking from the existing bound materials reflecting through an overlying
treatment, careful consideration of this distress mode is required as reflective cracking rather than fatigue
cracking may limit the service life of the treatment. As procedures to predict reflective cracking life have yet
to be developed for use in Part 5, the designer needs to use experience and engineering judgement in
considering reflective cracking.
The MEP is intended to be used to design strengthening treatments for pavements that have been in-service
for a number of years. The MEP should not be used to assess the structural adequacy of pavements within
three years of opening to traffic. Newly constructed pavements can take years for the pavement and
subgrade to reach stable, equilibrium conditions with the local environment. The use of design moduli based
on early-life in situ testing can be misleading. For newly constructed pavements, the procedures for the
design of new pavements (Austroads 2017) are used to determine structural adequacy.
In 2017, the Austroads pavement response model for the design of new flexible pavements
(Austroads 2017) was changed to predict the critical strains under each axle load of each axle group type
rather than only under an 80 kN single axle with dual tyres (Austroads 2012). This resulted in a change to the
calculated new pavement design thicknesses using the 2017 edition compared to the 2012 edition values.
The adoption of this method in the 2019 edition of Part 5 also resulted in changes in treatment thicknesses.

3.3 Consideration of Strength Variability of Existing Pavements

The structural capacity of a pavement that requires rehabilitation typically varies both longitudinally and
transversely over the project alignment. Therefore, to design cost-effective structural treatments, it is usually
necessary to divide the project into sub-sections that have relatively uniform strength.
The identification of such homogeneous sub-sections is also an important element in selecting the subgrade
design CBR in the design of new pavements (Austroads 2017):
If the testing interval and data are unbiased, and the variability of test results is low, then
statistical analysis can be used to determine a design CBR at an appropriate percentile
level. To ensure homogeneous sub-sections of subgrade, the CBR values should have a
coefficient of variation (i.e. standard deviation divided by the mean) of 0.25 or less. The ten
percentile level (i.e. 90% of results exceed this level) is commonly adopted as the design
CBR of highway pavements. For roads in arid climates, or roads of lesser importance,
higher percentile values may be appropriate.
The characterisation of the subgrade strength using the lower CBR values in a sub-section is linked to the
extent of pavement distress at the end of structural life when the pavement needs to be rehabilitated. For
moderate to heavily trafficked roads it is common for pavement to be treated when 10–20% of the
sub-section length reaches a terminal condition, e.g. 20 mm surface rutting and/or fatigue cracking of bound
layers. As a consequence, it is the performance of the weakest areas of sub-section that limits life rather
than say the mean performance. The same concept applies in the empirical design of granular overlays in
the calculation of the characteristic deflection (Section 2.2) and also in treatment design using the MEP.
In the MEP, consideration of variability of the field determination of subgrade CBR using an in situ CBR test
or a cone penetrometer is consistent with the method used in the new pavements (Austroads 2017).
Back-calculated modulus variability is discussed in Section 3.4.3.
3.4 Back-calculation of In situ Moduli
3.4.1 Introduction
The moduli of the existing pavement layers and subgrade may be determined from the measured falling
weight deflectometer (FWD) deflections and layer material properties in a process known as modulus
back-calculation. A methodical trial and error approach is used to determine the combination of pavement
and subgrade layer moduli which results in a predicted deflection bowl that best matches the measured
deflection bowl.
Several back-calculation methods are available for estimating layer moduli. In selecting a method, it should
be noted that the MEP is based in part on the ME design of new flexible pavements (Austroads 2017). In the
design of new pavements, the allowable traffic loadings are determined from the critical strain responses
calculated from a linear elastic model (e.g. CIRCLY, AustPads). The suitability of the back-calculated moduli
to determine design moduli is greater if the linear elastic model used to predict the deflection bowls during
back-calculation is the same as used in the design of new pavements. Of particular importance in this regard
is that the Austroads response-to-load model used in the design of new pavements includes
cross-anisotropic modulus characterisation of subgrade, selected subgrade materials and unbound granular
materials such that the vertical modulus is twice the horizontal modulus (i.e. Ev = 2Eh). Hence, the MEP
design moduli determined for the above material types need to be anisotropic values.
In the 2011 edition of Part 5, there was no change to the guidance in relation to modulus back-calculation to
the text provided in the 2004 Rehabilitation Guide, and the 1st and 2nd editions of Part 5 (Austroads 2008a,
Austroads 2009).

In the 2019 edition, the modulus back-calculation guidance was enhanced to provide:
• more detailed guidance on the selection of deflection bowls for modulus back-calculation as discussed in
Section 3.4.3
• a method to convert back-calculated isotropic moduli of subgrade and granular materials to
cross-anisotropic values as discussed in Section 3.4.4
• improved guidance on the subgrade and pavement layer thicknesses (Section 3.4.5).
3.4.2 Austroads Back-calculation Algorithm
The pavement and subgrade moduli back-calculated vary with the model (e.g. CIRCLY, AustPads) used to
predict the deflection bowls and the method used to select trial layer moduli.
To improve consistency of back-calculated moduli, Bodin, Zhalehjoo and Garton (Austroads 2019b)
developed an Austroads back-calculation algorithm (AustBack) algorithm which may be considered in the
future development of Austroads back-calculation software.
Should software using this algorithm be developed it is anticipated that Part 5 will be revised to provide
detailed guidance on the use of this modulus back-calculation method.
3.4.3 Considerations of Modulus Variability
In relation to the variability of back-calculated moduli within a homogeneous sub-section, Bodin, Zhalehjoo
and Garton (Austroads 2019b) investigated two methods of determining representative back-calculated
moduli after identifying homogeneous sub-sections:
• back-calculating layer moduli from several deflection bowls close to the characteristic deflection
(Method A)
• back-calculating layer moduli for each deflection bowl, adopting, separately for each layer, the lowest
10th percentile moduli from the range of back-calculated moduli (Method B).
The research project compared the outcomes of the two methods (A and B) for the first case study (Case 1,
Section 4.3 of Austroads 2019b) using back-calculated moduli with the subgrade constraints. The two
methods gave the layer moduli for treatment design presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Case 1 representative moduli for treatment design using Methods A and B
Back-calculated layer moduli (MPa)

Method
EAC EGR1 EGR2 ESG1 ESG2 ESG3
A(1) 3520 390 56 28 74 160
B 2660 280 50 30 70 110
1 Average for chainages 185 and 195 m.
Source: Austroads (2019b).
To appreciate the differences in the representative moduli resulting from the two methods, FWD deflection
bowls were calculated (Austroads 2019b) using the two modulus sets. Figure 3.1 shows the predicted bowls
using the moduli from the two methods superimposed with the 20 deflection bowls measured for this
pavement section.

Figure 3.1: Predicted deflection bowls using the calculated moduli for the two methods (Case 1)
The deflections predicted using the Method B moduli are well in excess of all the measured deflection bowls.
This demonstrates that a combination of the 10th percentile values for each layer (Method B) underestimates
the structural adequacy of the existing pavement. The process clearly does not represent the structural
capacity exceeded by 90% of the length, even though this is the desired characteristic. The deflection bowl
resulting from Method A provides a better representation of the measured pavement response for the
chainages with higher deflection related to the weaker areas of the sub-section that will limit life.
In the 2004 Guide and the 2008, 2009 and 2011 editions of Part 5, advice in relation to use of
back-calculated moduli included: ‘The test data from the weaker areas of pavement in each homogeneous
sub-section are usually of most relevance.’ More detailed advice was provided in the 2019 edition of Part 5: it
was recommended that representative back-calculated moduli estimated from deflection bowls close to the
characteristic deflection (Method A) be used in the determination of design moduli for existing pavement
layers and the subgrade.
3.4.4 Adjustment of Isotropic Moduli to Anisotropic Values
At the time the 2019 edition was prepared, the commercially available back-calculation computer programs
only provided estimations of isotropic layer moduli (EH = EV) rather than cross-anisotropic moduli for granular
and subgrade materials required for the determination of design moduli. Consequently, for the 2019 edition a
process was developed to estimate equivalent anisotropic moduli from the back-calculated isotropic
subgrade and granular materials moduli.
The adjustment method from isotropic (Ev = Eh) to cross-anisotropic (Ev = 2Eh) moduli was developed by
predicting surface deflections under a 40 kN FWD load at various offsets from the centre of loading using
both isotropic and anisotropic modulus characterisation of granular and subgrade materials. The linear
elastic model CIRCLY (Wardle 1999) was used to predict the surface deflections.

For a given structure, the surface deflections were firstly calculated using cross-anisotropic characterisation
for granular and subgrade materials. Then the isotropic modulus values were iterated such that the predicted
surface deflection bowls were close to the bowls predicted using cross-anisotropic characterisation of the
MEP (Ev = 2Eh).
Three types of pavement structure were investigated with different complexities:

• a homogeneous semi-infinite half-space (1 layer: subgrade layer only)
• thin bituminous surfaced unbound granular pavement (2 layers: granular and subgrade)
• full-depth asphalt pavements (2 layers: asphalt and subgrade).
The results are discussed below.
Modulus adjustment in a homogeneous half-space
A simple structure was used for the first series of deflection bowl predictions, consisting of a subgrade only of
semi-infinite thickness and assuming a Poisson’s ratio of 0.45 regardless of modulus. The deflections were
predicted using subgrade vertical moduli (Ev) in the range 20 MPa to 500 MPa and Eh = 0.5 Ev in the
anisotropic model predictions.
It was determined that an isotropic modulus (Eiso) obtained by multiplying the vertical modulus in the
anisotropic characterisation (Ev) by 0.84 resulted in a very close match in predicted deflections, that is
Eiso/Ev = 0.84. The factor did not vary markedly with the subgrade modulus.
The process was repeated using a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35, a value used in Part 2 for unbound granular
materials and non-cohesive subgrades. In this case, Eiso/Ev = 0.87 produced the best match.
Moduli adjustment for sprayed seal surfaced unbound granular pavements
The next simplest pavement structure comprised unbound granular material placed on subgrade. For this
configuration it was determined that Eiso/Ev values of 0.84 to 0.87 provided isotropic bowls that best matched
the bowl predicted using cross-anisotropic moduli.
Moduli adjustment for pavements with bound materials
In Part 2, asphalt, cemented materials and lean-mix concrete have isotropic modulus characterisation. As a
consequence, the back-calculated moduli of these materials do not need to be adjusted to anisotropic
values. However, for pavements with these bound materials the back-calculated isotropic moduli of any
unbound granular material and subgrade layers need to be adjusted.
Deflection bowls were predicted for a range of asphalt thicknesses (50 mm to 400 mm) on a semi-infinite
thick subgrade with Ev = 100 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio = 0.45. An asphalt modulus of 3000 MPa was used
in the calculation, however a check was made that the Eiso/Ev ratios did not vary with asphalt modulus.
For each pavement the isotropic subgrade modulus was varied until the deflection bowl best agreed with the
predicted bowl using anisotropic subgrade modulus characterisation. Figure 3.2 is an example.

Figure 3.2: Example of difference in predicted FWD deflection bowls with isotropic and anisotropic subgrade
modulus characterisation
200 mm asphalt (E=3000 MPa) on semi-infinite subgrade

0.40
0.35
Ev= 2 x Eh = 100 MPa
0.30 Ev = Eh = 90 MPa
Ev=Eh=100 MPa
0.25
Deflection
(mm) isotropic 100 MPa
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Distance from centre of loading plate (mm)
The calculated Eiso/Ev ratios varied from about 0.88 for 50 mm asphalt thickness to about 0.91 for 400 mm
asphalt thickness. The calculations were repeated using a semi-infinite thick subgrade Ev = 100 MPa and a
Poisson’s ratio = 0.35. The Eiso/Ev ratios were slightly higher, about 0.90 to 0.94.
In 2019 PSWG discussed the above analysis in relation to isotropic moduli and noted that the adjustment
factor varied with the pavement composition with Eiso/Ev ratios varying from about 0.85 to 0.94.
Given the variability and uncertainty of back-calculated moduli, PSWG decided against a complex
adjustment factor varying with the pavement structure. It was agreed that in Part 5 the vertical modulus of
granular and subgrade material (Ev) used in the anisotropic characterisation should be estimated by
multiplying the back-calculated isotropic moduli by a factor of 1.1 (from Eiso/Ev = 0.9) with Eh = 0.5 Ev. This
factor would apply regardless of the pavement structure.
To use this adjustment factor to back-calculate isotropic moduli obtained using a back-calculation model that
does not use the linear elastic model CIRCLY, it is necessary to verify that this alternative linear elastic
model predicts similar deflections to CIRCLY with isotropic moduli. This verification process should improve
consistency of design moduli calculated from various commercially available back-analysis software.
3.4.5 Guidance on Layer Thicknesses
The 2019 edition states that ‘the total number of pavement layers and subgrade layers to be iterated in the
model should not exceed the number of geophones used to measure the bowl.’ That is to solve for a number
of ‘unknowns’ (e.g. layer moduli) the same number or more ‘knowns’ (e.g. deflections) should be provided to
reduce the number of possible combinations of moduli that would provide a deflection bowls match.
According to ASTM D5858-96 Standard Guide for Calculating in Situ Equivalent Elastic Moduli of Pavement
Materials Using Layered Elastic Theory (Reapproved 2015), it is common practice to limit the number of
‘unknowns’ to five.

ASTM (2015) also provides the following guidance in relation to modulus back-calculation of thin pavement
layers:
For upper surface layers that are thin, that is less than one-fourth of the diameter of the
loaded areas (e.g. 75 mm for a 300 mm diameter loading plate) or layers that are thinner
than the layer directly above, the elastic moduli often cannot be accurately determined by
most back-calculation methods. These thin layers, if possible, should be combined in
assigned thickness with a similar type of material above or below the thin layer, or the
moduli of the thin layers can be estimated and assigned as ‘known’ values.
Accordingly, and in recognition that the spacings between FWD geophones is 100 mm or more, the 2019
edition of Part 5 included the following advice:
• There is insufficient information in the measured FWD deflection bowls to
back-calculate the modulus of layers 75 mm or less in thickness.
• If the total thickness of asphalt layers is 75 mm to 150 mm, a single asphalt modulus
should be back-calculated representing the composite value.
• If the total thickness of unbound and modified granular materials is 150 mm or less, the
single modulus should be back-calculated representing the composite value.
In relation to back-calculation of in situ subgrade moduli, previous editions had mentioned ‘the subgrade
should be subdivided into two or more sublayers, with the top layer usually about 200–400 mm thick.’ To
improve consistency in modulus back-calculation, PSWG requested more specific guidance be provided. In
relation to the number of in situ subgrade sublayers to use, it was decided to vary the number with the depth
of top of the subgrade below the surface. Austroads (2019a) states:
Where the top of the subgrade is within 500 mm of the surface, the preferred subgrade
characterisation in the model is three sub-layers: upper subgrade layer 300 mm thick,
intermediate subgrade layer 500 mm thick and lower subgrade of semi-infinite thickness. If
the top of the in situ subgrade is more than 500 mm below the surface, the preferred
subgrade characterisation in the model is two sub-layers: upper subgrade layer 300 mm
thick and lower subgrade of semi-infinite thickness.
The number of subgrade layers has a significant effect of moduli back-calculated moduli. For example,
consider the case of a 100 m long pavement comprising: 110 mm thickness of dense graded asphalt,
150 mm thickness of granular base, 240 mm thickness of granular subbase on in situ subgrade. FWD
deflection bowls were measured every 10 m along the project. Pavement and subgrade modulus values
were calculated using three in situ subgrade characterisations:
• 1 layer: a single semi-infinite subgrade
• 2 layers: upper subgrade 300 mm thick on lower subgrade semi-infinite thickness
• 3 layers: upper subgrade 300 mm thick, intermediate subgrade layer 500 mm thick on lower subgrade
semi-infinite thickness.
The mean back-calculated moduli are listed in Table 3.2. The results clearly show the misleading subgrade
moduli that occur when only one subgrade layer is used. For this 500 mm thick pavement, the 2-layer and
3-layer models result in similar moduli however the 3-layer model has a minor advantage in that the granular
base and subbase is in closer agreement with the values used in the design of new pavements.

Table 3.2: Case study of variation of back-calculated moduli with number of subgrade layers
Mean back-calculated modulus (MPa)
300 mm upper subgrade

Material Single 300 mm upper subgrade
500 mm intermediate
semi-infinite on semi-infinite lower
subgrade on semi-infinite
subgrade subgrade
lower subgrade
Asphalt (110 mm thick) 7290 7120 7290
Granular base (150 mm thick) 369 374 354
Granular subbase (240 mm thick) 43 67 89
Subgrade 1 139 43 47
Subgrade 2 157 91
Subgrade 3 167
Average bowl fitting error 8.6% 2.3% 2.2%
There were two reasons for varying the number of sub-layers with pavement depth:
• Subgrade moduli vary with applied stress due to traffic loading and weight of the overlying materials. The
closer the subgrade material is to the pavement surface, the greater the variation with depth. Hence,
there may be advantage in using three subgrade layers rather than two when the pavement thickness is
less than 500 mm.
• ASTM (2015) suggests modulus be calculated for a maximum five layers. For projects where the top of
subgrade is more than 500 mm below the surface, it was considered more relevant to performance
prediction to allow three of the five layers to be used for pavement materials and selected subgrade
materials. Hence in such cases, the preferred subgrade characterisation was reduced from three
sublayers to two sublayers.
It should be noted that currently available back-calculation programs are limited to a maximum of 4–5 layers.
Hence, until improved software is developed, the use of a 3-layer subgrade model is expected to be limited
and the 2-layer model will be commonly used for all pavement thicknesses.
3.5 Determining Design Moduli of Existing Pavement Layers and

Subgrade
3.5.1 Introduction
The MEP requires the design moduli for existing pavement layers and the subgrade to be estimated as
accurately as possible, typically from:
• back-calculation of layer moduli from measured deflections (Section 3.4)
• visual inspections
• detailed pavement investigation including laboratory testing
• design moduli used for new pavements (Austroads 2017)
• presumptive cracked asphalt moduli (Section 3.5.6)
• presumptive cracked cemented materials and lean-mix concrete moduli (Section 3.5.7)
• presumptive cracked FBS material (Section 3.5.8).
Engineering judgement and design expertise are commonly required in determining design moduli from
these data.

3.5.2 Subgrade
In designing new pavements for moderate to heavily traffic roads the subgrade design moduli is commonly
derived from laboratory CBR testing and assuming Equation 2 of Austroads (2017), namely Ev = 10 x CBR.
Guidance is provided on the densities and moisture contents for laboratory CBR testing. The performance
relationships to determine allowable traffic loadings from predicted critical strains have been principally
determined from the in-service performance of pavements designed using this method of subgrade
characterisation. Consequently, as the MEP uses these same performance relationships (Section 3.7) the
MEP method of subgrade characterisation needs to be consistent with the values used in the design of new
pavements.
Austroads (2017) also provides guidance on the determination of subgrade design CBR from field
measurement of in situ CBR and from dynamic cone penetrometer measurements. In determining the
subgrade design CBR ‘care must be taken when carrying out the tests that the subgrade is in a critical
moisture condition; otherwise, seasonal adjustments may need to be made’. In Section 4.2 of
Austroads (2017) further information is provided about this critical state:
The effect of changes in moisture content on the strength/modulus of the subgrade is taken
into consideration by evaluating the strength/stiffness parameters (e.g. CBR or modulus) at
the highest moisture content likely to occur during the design period. It is important that as
accurate an estimate as practicable be made of the representative in-service moisture
conditions.
However, Austroads (2017) does not provide a process to determine the highest moisture content.
Consequently, the adjustment of in situ CBR from the testing moisture content to highest in-service value is
based on the knowledge and judgement of the designer and in some cases guidance provided by the asset
owners design guidelines.
In the design of rehabilitation treatments, it is more common to determine the subgrade design CBR from
dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) results than in the design of new pavements. Given the uncertainty in
adjusting such field CBR values to the critical moisture condition, during the preparation of the 2019 edition
of Part 5 it was considered that guidance should be provided on the maximum subgrade design modulus to
be used where laboratory CBR results are not available (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3: Suggested maximum subgrade design modulus values
Description of subgrade material Maximum vertical design modulus (MPa)(1,2)
Excellent to good
Material Unified soil classification Fair to poor drainage
drainage
Highly plastic clay CH 100 50
Silt ML 80 40
Silty-clay, sandy-clay CL 100 70
Sand SW, SP 150 150
1 Table 5.4 of Austroads (2017) provides typical presumptive subgrade design CBR values. The maximum modulus
values in Table 3.3 have been derived using twice these CBR values to allow for non-typical subgrades and
equilibrium moistures.
2 Maximum modulus for use when laboratory CBR results are not available.
The Table 3.3 maximum subgrade design moduli were derived:

• using twice the Austroads (2017) typical presumptive design CBR values (Table 3.4) to allow for
non-typical subgrades and variability of critical moisture contents
• using Equation 2 of Austroads (2017), namely EV = 10 x CBR, up to a maximum vertical modulus of
150 MPa.

Table 3.4: Typical presumptive subgrade design CBR values
Description of subgrade Typical design CBR values (%)
Unified Soil Excellent to good

Material Fair to poor drainage
Classification drainage
Highly plastic clay CH 5 2‒3
Silt ML 4 2
Silty-clay CL 5‒6 3‒4
Sandy-clay CL
Sand SW, SP 10‒18 10‒18
Source: Austroads (2017).
The provision of these maximum values was also necessary as the determination of the design CBR from
DCP results includes an additional step, that is the estimation of laboratory CBR from cone penetration
measurements. These maximum values also limit possible errors in this process.
Unlike the design of new pavements, in the design of rehabilitation treatments back-calculated subgrade
moduli may be used to determine subgrade design moduli. In the design of new pavements
(Austroads 2017), back-calculated moduli are usually considered inappropriate to determine subgrade
design moduli. Austroads (2017) states:
The back-calculated modulus values are generally within a factor of 2 of the true value, and
this may be unacceptable for many situations. Results obtained in this manner
(back-calculation) should be treated with caution and supplemented with results from other
means of investigation.
Moreover, for the design of new pavements (other than reconstructions and widenings), a pavement does
not exist on which deflections may be measured and then modulus back-calculated. This is another reason
back-calculated moduli are not used in the design of new pavements. In contrast, in rehabilitation design it is
not uncommon to have deflection data from which existing subgrade moduli may be back-calculated. For this
reason, there is a need to provide guidance in Part 5 on the use of back-calculated subgrade moduli to
determine design moduli.
During the preparation of the 2019 edition of Part 5, previously analysed data from the Mulgrave Accelerated
Loading Facility (ALF) trial (Jameson 2000) for the top of subgrade moduli determined as follows were
compared:
• The in situ CBR results of the top of subgrade were estimated from the DCP measurements, using
Figure 5.9 of Austroads (2017). Using Equation 2 of Austroads (2017), namely Ev = 10 x CBR, the
subgrade vertical modulus at the field density and field moisture content was then calculated.
• The subgrade vertical moduli for the top of subgrade at the field density and field moisture content were
back-calculated using the computer program EFROMD2 (Vuong 1991). These back-calculated moduli
were calculated about 30 years ago and reported (Jameson 2000, Jameson, Sharp & Vertessy 1992).
Figure 3.3 compares the moduli so determined at individual chainages. It is apparent that the subgrade
moduli differ markedly between the two methods. The back-calculated moduli used to determine the design
moduli are those at chainages with measured maximum deflections close to the characteristic deflection. In
terms of Figure 3.3 data, these chainages have a back-calculated vertical modulus of about 80 MPa
compared to about 50 MPa determined from the DCP test results. By comparison, the corresponding design
vertical modulus from the laboratory soaked CBR testing was 30 MPa. Such differences are not unexpected
as in the MEPDG (Federal Highway Administration 2017) method used in parts of the USA, equivalent
laboratory modulus values of subgrade soils are estimated by multiplying the back-calculated moduli by a
factor of 0.4.

Figure 3.3: Comparison of the top subgrade vertical moduli determined from DCP results and back-calculation
140
130
120
110
100
90
Subgrade modulus
from DCP results 80
(MPa)
70
60
50
40
30
20
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350
Back-calculated subgrade modulus (MPa)
Consideration should be given to undertaking research to develop an adjustment factor to apply to

back-calculated modulus appropriate for future use in Part 5. Pending this research, the suggested maximum
subgrade design moduli (Table 3.3) provided in the 2019 edition should apply when using back-calculated
moduli. These maxima to some extent address the over-estimation of modulus from back-calculated values.
As the design method for new pavements (Austroads 2017) is the foundation of the MEP, in the MEP the
subgrade is defined as a single layer of semi-infinite thickness consistent with Austroads (2017). This
subgrade characterisation differs from varying moduli with depth commonly estimated from modulus
back-calculation and field cone penetration testing. Since the MEP was first described in the 2004 Austroads
Guide, it has been recommended that the top of subgrade values be adopted for the semi-infinite support
condition as the top of subgrade commonly has the most influence in the support provided to the pavement
layers. The 2019 edition provided the following additional guidance:
In the event that the subgrade moduli decrease with depth below the top of subgrade,
consideration should be given to using the modulus from the upper weakest portion of
subgrade to derive the subgrade modulus with the overlying subgrade materials being
characterised as a selected subgrade material.
3.5.3 Selected Subgrade Materials
As the MEP uses these same performance relationships as used in the design of new pavements
(Austroads 2017), the MEP method of elastic characterisation of selected subgrade materials needs to be
consistent with the method used in the design of new pavements.
In the 2004 Pavement Design Guide and the 2008 and 2010 editions of Part 2, the total thickness of all
selected subgrade materials was divided into five equi-thick sublayers and procedures were described to
calculate the modulus of each sublayer depending on the modulus and thickness of each material and the
support provided by the underlying in situ subgrade.
In the 2012 and 2017 editions of Part 2, the method was changed to require that each selected subgrade
material be sublayered into five sublayers rather than the total thickness of all selected subgrade materials.

Prior to the 2019 edition of Part 5, there was no specific guidance on the use of back-calculated moduli to
determine the design modulus of each sublayer.
The 2019 edition of Part 5 provides detailed guidance to improve consistency in the design moduli used in
treatment design with those used in the design of new pavements. A step-by-step sublayering method was
provided to ensure that the moduli assigned to sublayers does not exceed the values derived using the
back-calculated modulus of a selected subgrade layer. This process limits the modulus of the middle of the
five sublayers to not exceed the back-calculated modulus, which ensures that the average of the sublayer
modulus values does not exceed the back-calculated layer value. This new process also limits the vertical
design moduli to the suggested maximum listed in Table 3.3.
3.5.4 Lime-stabilised Subgrade
In the 2004 Pavement Design Guide and the 2008 and 2010 editions of Part 2, specific guidance on the
design of lime-stabilised subgrades was not provided. No specific guidance on stabilised subgrades was
provided in the 2004 Pavement Rehabilitation Guide and the 2008 and 2009 editions of Part 5.
The 2011 edition of Part 5, included guidance in relation to the design of stabilisation treatments, namely:
The stabilised subgrade is modelled in the same manner as a selected subgrade material.
The design moduli are determined using the same procedures as for unstabilised
subgrades (refer to Part 2 of the Guide). A maximum design modulus of 150 MPa is
normally adopted. Representative values of Poisson’s ratio are:
− 0.45 for stabilised subgrade with a design modulus less than 100 MPa
− 0.35 for stabilised subgrade with a design modulus of 100 MPa or more.
The 2017 edition of Part 2 provided guidance that the design method for selected subgrade materials in new
pavements also applies to lime-stabilised subgrade layers, including elastic characterisation of the five
sublayers.
To align with this new method, the 2019 edition of Part 5 stated that the procedures described in
Section 3.5.3 for selected subgrade materials also apply for lime-stabilised subgrades.
3.5.5 Unbound Granular and Modified Granular Materials
In the 2004 Pavement Rehabilitation Guide and the 2008, 2009 and 2011 editions of Part 5, the guidance on
the determination of design moduli of unbound granular and modified granular materials was limited to:
The test data from the weaker areas of pavement in each homogeneous subsection are
usually of most relevance. The representative moduli of the subgrade and unbound
granular materials need to be estimated using the design procedures for new pavements
(Part 2 of the Guide). This occurs after adjusting the measured subgrade CBR for any
seasonal effects or proposed remedial treatments (i.e. drainage improvements, provision of
sealed shoulders etc.) that will change the moisture regime or the support conditions.
The 2019 edition of Part 5 provides more detailed guidance on design processes for existing unbound
granular and modified granular materials that result in improved consistency with the characterisation used in
the design of new pavements.
In 2019, the sublayering method included a new process to ensure that the moduli assigned to sublayers
does not exceed the values derived using the back-calculated modulus for the unbound granular or modified
granular material layers. This process limits the modulus of the middle of the five sublayers to not exceed the
back-calculated modulus, which ensures that the average of the sublayer modulus values does not exceed
the back-calculated layer value.

In the event that back-calculated moduli for more than one layer are available, Equation 11 of Part 5
provides a method of determining an equivalent modulus for the total thickness using Odemark’s (1949)
stiffness parameter.
3.5.6 Asphalt
Adjustment of back-calculated modulus for pavement temperature
In the 2004 Guide and the 2008, 2009 and 2011 editions of Part 5, a method was provided to adjust
back-calculated asphalt moduli for differences between the asphalt temperature (60 mm depth, mid-layer)
during deflection testing and the in-service temperature (WMAPT).
This Part 5 modulus adjustment for temperature was that used in Part 2 for the design of new pavements. In
Section 6.5.5 of Austroads (2017), Equation 2 is provided to adjust indirect tensile moduli from the standard
test temperature of 25 °C to the operating temperature in-service (WMAPT).
Field modulus at WMAPT 2

= 𝑒𝑒 �−0.08(WMAPT−T)�
Laboratory modulus at test temperature (T)
This relationship was derived from untrafficked asphalt moduli back-calculated from FWD deflection bowls
measured on a full-depth asphalt pavement as part of the Mulgrave ALF trial (Jameson, Sharp &
Vertessy 1992). The asphalt was less than 12 months old at the time of FWD testing. The results are shown
in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4: Variation in back-calculated asphalt modulus with pavement temperature
9000
8000
7000
6000
Back-calculated 5000
modulus
(MPa) 4000
3000
y = 20480e-0.079x
2000
1000
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Asphalt mid-depth temperature (°C)
Source: Adapted from Jameson, Sharp and Vertessy (1992).

It is noted that moduli tend to reduce at a lower rate for temperatures above 30 °C, presumably because of
the lateral confining pressure in the road-bed. In view of this trend, in using Equation 2 to adjust
back-calculated moduli, consideration should be given in future editions of Part 5 to limiting the temperature
adjustment to a maximum pavement temperature of 40 °C.
Equation 2 is applicable to sound untrafficked asphalt without cracking. However, during deflection testing of
existing pavements it is common for the asphalt to be cracked. As part of the Mulgrave ALF trial (Jameson,
Sharp & Vertessy 1992), the temperature variations in back-calculated asphalt moduli with various severities
of cracking after trafficking were also measured. The cracking severities at each site were quantified in terms
of the total length of surface cracking in a square metre, as illustrated in the examples shown in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5: Cracking severities, the outlined areas are 1 m2 area of trafficked pavement
3 m/m2 cracking 7 m/m2 cracking
19 m/m2 cracking
By pooling with the data derived from the untrafficked (Figure 3.4) and trafficked chainages, Jameson, Sharp
and Vertessy (1992) obtained Equation 3 relating back-calculated asphalt modulus (E, MPa), asphalt
temperature at mid-depth (T, °C), and severity of cracking (C, m/m2).
log(E) = 4.116 − 0.0027T1.7 − 0.074C + 0.00016CT1.7 3

This relationship was applicable for pavement temperatures from 10 °C to 30 °C. Figure 3.6 illustrates how
the modulus temperature dependency reduces with cracking severity.
Figure 3.6: Predicted variation of back-calculated asphalt modulus with temperature
10000
9000 untrafficked, cracking 0 m / sq m
8000 trafficked, cracking 6 m / sq m
7000 trafficked, cracking 12 m / sq m
6000
Asphalt
modulus 5000
(MPa)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Asphalt temperature (°C)
In the 2019 edition of Part 5, the following process was used to determine a modulus temperature
adjustment for cracked asphalt:
• It was considered overly complex to require the cracking severity to be measured at each deflection site
and to provide an adjustment factor based on this measured cracking severity. Instead, methods were
developed for modulus adjustment at two cracking severity levels that could be visually rated during
deflection testing, namely moderate cracking severity (6 m/m2) and the beginning of crocodile cracking
(12 m/m2).
• For temperatures of 10 °C – 30 °C Equation 3 was used to calculate the ratio of cracked asphalt to the
untrafficked asphalt moduli. The modulus-temperature adjustment factors for cracked asphalt were then
determined by multiplying the untrafficked modulus-temperature adjustments predicted using Equation 2
by these ratios.
Figure 3.7 shows the adjustment factors for asphalt in three crack states: without cracking (0 m/m2),
moderate cracking (6 m/m2) and crocodile cracking (12 m/m2) for a project with a WMAPT of 25 °C. From
these calculations, the 2019 edition included Equation 4 to adjust back-calculated asphalt moduli for
temperature.
𝐸𝐸𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵_𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = 𝐸𝐸𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵_𝑇𝑇 𝑒𝑒 (𝑘𝑘 (𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊−𝑇𝑇) 4

where
𝐸𝐸𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵_𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = back-calculated asphalt modulus at WMAPT (MPa)
back-calculated asphalt modulus at pavement temperature during measurement,
𝐸𝐸𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵_𝑇𝑇 =
T (MPa)
–0.08 when the asphalt is sound
𝑘𝑘 = –0.05 when the asphalt is moderately cracked
–0.02 when the asphalt is crocodile cracked
WMAPT = weighted mean annual pavement temperature (°C)
T = asphalt temperature when the deflections were measured (°C)

Figure 3.7: Temperature adjustments of back-calculated asphalt modulus based on cracking severity
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8 untrafficked, cracking 0 m / sq m
2.6 y = 7.3891e-0.08x
trafficked, cracking 6 m / sq m
2.4
trafficked, cracking 12 m / sq m
Modulus 2.2
relative 2.0 y = 3.4854e-0.05x
to modulus 1.8
at 25 °C
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0 y = 1.644e-0.019x
0.8
0.6
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Modulus reduction factors
A significant aspect of designing treatments for asphalt pavements is assessing the structural capacity of
existing asphalt layers to carry future traffic. Austroads has yet to develop a design method to estimate the
remaining fatigue life of existing asphalt. For this reason, the fatigue life of the existing asphalt is not
considered in the MEP.
Nevertheless, important characteristics in the rehabilitation treatment designs are the modulus and thickness
of the existing asphalt layers. These are particularly important when asphalt overlays are being designed as
the support provided by the existing asphalt can be a major factor in predicting overlay fatigue life.
Whilst measured deflection may be used to estimate the existing asphalt moduli prior to treatment,
consideration needs to be given to the possible reduction in such moduli due to load-induced damage after
the pavement has been treated due to future traffic during the treatment design period.
In the 2004 Guide and the 2008, 2009 and 2011 editions of Part 5 a conservative method was provided for
the existing asphalt moduli, namely maximum presumptive moduli were provided (Figure 3.8). As discussed
below, these moduli are the estimated values when the asphalt is crocodile cracked.

Figure 3.8: Maximum design moduli assigned to existing asphalt layers
In developing the 2019 edition, PSWG requested the MEP be enhanced by providing a method that adjusted
the existing asphalt back-calculated moduli for the likelihood of future fatigue damage during the
rehabilitation design period.
In developing the method, the possible increase in existing asphalt moduli due to ageing was not considered.
The method developed was limited to the predicted reductions in existing modulus due to future
load-induced fatigue damage.
Again back-calculated asphalt moduli obtained during accelerated loading of a full-depth asphalt pavement
as part of the Mulgrave ALF trial (Jameson, Sharp & Vertessy 1992) were utilised. Asphalt moduli were
back-calculated from FWD deflections measured during loading of the 12 test chainages of each of five test
sections. These moduli were then adjusted to a reference temperature of 15 °C, this being a representative
temperature during the accelerated loading trial. The Equation 5 and Equation 6 ratios were then determined
for each chainage where at the completion of accelerated loading surface cracking had at least progressed
to a severity of 1 m/m2:
5
Eratio = E(n) / Ei
where
Eratio = asphalt modulus ratio
E(n) = back-calculated asphalt modulus adjusted to 15 ºC after n loading cycles (MPa)
Ei = back-calculated asphalt modulus adjusted to 15 ºC prior to trafficking (MPa)

Nratio = n / nc 6
where
Nratio = loading cycles ratio
n = number of load repetitions associated with E(n)

number of load repetitions to 1.0 m/m2 cracking, this being the beginning of
nc = surface cracking
The results are plotted in Figure 3.9, together with a regression equation to predict the asphalt modulus
reduction with loading.
Figure 3.9: Variation in back-calculated asphalt moduli with trafficking
1.4
1.2
1.0
Ratio of asphalt 0.8

modulus to
initial asphalt
modulus 0.6
Modulus ratio = 1 - 0.96 x (1-1/(1+2.5xTR)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Traffic ratio
It is apparent from Figure 3.9, that the modulus reduction with each loading cycle reduces as the fatigue
damage accumulates. For example, from Nratio of 0.0 to 0.5, the asphalt modulus ratio reduces from 1 to 0.47
whereas from a Nratio of 0.5 to 1.0 the asphalt modulus reduces about a third from 0.47 to 0.31. This needed
to be considered in using the Figure 3.9 data to derive a method to predict the changes in moduli due to
future traffic.
In the routine design of project treatments, the amount of fatigue damage is unknown unless fatigue cracking
is observed either on the pavement surface or by coring. It was agreed by PSWG that the data in Figure 3.9
should only be utilised to assess the reductions in asphalt moduli for those pavements where surface
cracking is observed. Otherwise, modulus reductions due to future traffic loadings may be applied to asphalt
layers that have not accumulated fatigue damage due to past traffic. As Nratio values greater than or equal to
1 have by definition observable surface cracking, it is modulus reductions in this state that were used to
develop the method for Part 5. When in this cracked state, the modulus reductions vary less with additional
traffic loading than in an uncracked state, as discussed above.

In adapting Figure 3.9 for use in the MEP, consideration was given to the likely increases in the applied
traffic loading during the treatment design period compared to the past traffic at the time when the treatment
is being designed. For a heavy vehicle growth rate of 3%, the cumulative future design traffic over a 20-year
design period is a factor of 1.8 greater than the cumulative traffic over the past 20 years. In the discussion
below, the ratio of the future design traffic divided by the past traffic is called the traffic ratio (TR).
Using the prediction equation shown in Figure 3.9 the following scenarios were considered:
• The pavement deflections are measured at Nratio = 1 (i.e.1 m/m2 cracking), the initial Eratio is 0.314, this
represents the estimated reduction in the initial modulus on opening to traffic if the pavement is deflection
tested when there is 1 m/m2 cracking (beginnings of cracking). As seen from Figure 3.9, at this condition
state the modulus reductions with each additional loading cycle are greater than at higher Nratio values.
• In the event that the future traffic is the same as the past traffic, from Figure 3.9 at the end of the design
period the Eratio reduces from 0.314 at the time of deflection testing to 0.200 at the cumulative Nratio of 2.0,
this being the sum of the initial Nratio (1.0) and the future Nratio (1.0). The value of 0.200 was calculated
using the equation in Figure 3.9 at a cumulative Nratio of 2.0.
• In the event that the future traffic is 50% higher than the past traffic, from Figure 3.9 at the end of the
design period the Eratio reduces from 0.314 at the time of deflection testing to 0.172 at the cumulative Nratio
of 2.5 this being the sum of the initial Nratio (1) and the future Nratio (1.5). The value of 0.175 was calculated
using the equation in Figure 3.9 at a cumulative Nratio of 2.5.
• In the event that the future traffic is twice the past traffic, from Figure 3.9 at the end of the design period
the Eratio reduces from 0.314 at the time of deflection testing to 0.153 at the cumulative Nratio of 3.0 this
being the sum of the initial Nratio (1.0) and the future Nratio (2.0). The value of 0.153 was calculated using
the equation in Figure 3.9 at a cumulative Nratio of 3.0.
These values are listed in Table 3.5. The modulus reduction factor due to the additional load-induced
damage during the treatment design period was calculated by dividing the final Eratio by the initial Eratio.
Table 3.5: Modulus reduction factors
Modulus
Initial Initial Final(2) Final
Traffic ratio(1) reduction
Nratio Eratio Nratio Eratio
factor(3)
1.0 0.314 1.0 2.0 0.200 0.636
1.0 0.314 1.5 2.5 0.172 0.548
1.0 0.314 2.0 3.0 0.153 0.486
1 Additional traffic during the treatment design period expressed as ratio of the design traffic for the treatment divided
by past traffic.
2 Final Nratio is the sum of the initial Nratio (past traffic) and the traffic ratio this being design traffic expressed relative to
the past traffic.
3 Calculate by dividing final Eratio by the initial Eratio.
Using Table 3.5 data which is plotted in Figure 3.10, Equation 7 was adopted in the 2019 edition of Part 5
considering that the modulus reduction factor is 1.0 when the design traffic for the treatment is zero.
1 7
MRF =
(1+TR/2))
where
MRF = modulus reduction factor
TR = traffic ratio, design traffic for the treatment (ESA) divided by the past traffic (ESA)

Figure 3.10: Variation in back-calculated asphalt moduli with trafficking
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Modulus
reduction
factor 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Design traffic / past traffic
As described above, the MRF are currently only applied to bound layers which have fatigue cracked under
the past traffic. Austroads is considering future research to improve the design method such that modulus
changes with loading and time can be estimated irrespective of whether the layer is fatigue cracked.
Presumptive cracked asphalt moduli
The 2004 Guide and subsequent editions of Part 5 have included presumptive cracked asphalt design
moduli as shown in Figure 3.8. The following process was used to develop these presumptive values:
• A representative design modulus of 3000 MPa was assumed for Class 320 dense graded asphalt at a
temperature of 27.5 °C and heavy vehicle speed of 60 km/h.
• Using this modulus value and the Austroads temperature correction for uncracked asphalt (Equation 2),
the moduli at other temperatures were calculated as shown in Figure 3.11. These design moduli are
those of sound asphalt consistent with the values used for the design of new pavements
(Austroads 2017).
• It was decided that the cracked asphalt moduli should be conservatively based on values appropriate for
crocodile cracked asphalt. A cracking severity of 15 m/m2 was adopted.
• Using Equation 3, the ratio of cracked asphalt (15 m/m2) moduli to sound asphalt moduli were determined
(Figure 3.12).
• Applying these ratios to the sound asphalt moduli, the cracked asphalt moduli shown in Figure 3.11 were
derived.
Accordingly, the presumptive moduli for existing cracked asphalt (Figure 3.8) was included in the 2004 Guide
and 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2019 editions of Part 5.
In the 2004 Guide and the 2008, 2009 and 2011 editions of Part 5, the existing asphalt was assigned a
design modulus not exceeding the value obtained from Figure 3.8 regardless of the back-calculated modulus
and condition of the existing asphalt when designing the rehabilitation. In the 2019 edition of Part 5 the use
of these presumptive values changed with the development of a method of adjusting the back-calculated
moduli for future load-induced distress discussed above. The design steps are detailed in Section 10.7.5 of
the 2019 edition.

Figure 3.11: Sound and crocodile cracked asphalt moduli

9000
8000
7000
6000
Asphalt
modulus 5000
(MPa)
4000 Sound asphalt
3000
2000
Cracked asphalt
1000
0
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
Figure 3.12: Reduction in asphalt modulus associated with crocodile cracking
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Moduli at 15 m/m2
Moduli at 0 m/m2
0.4
Cracking severity 15 m/m2
y = 122.71x-0.7588
0.3
0.2
0.1
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Asphalt moduli at 0 m/m2 cracking

3.5.7 Cemented Materials and Lean-mix Concrete
The 2004 Guide and the 2008, 2009 and 2011 editions of Part 5, provided the following advice in relation to
the design of moduli of existing cemented materials (at that time the definition of cemented materials
included lean-mix concrete):
The design moduli for asphalt and cemented materials in the existing pavement are likely
to differ significantly from the values used in the design of new pavements, mainly due to
the effects of past trafficking and a range of environmental effects. Hence, in the
mechanistic overlay design procedures, the design moduli assigned to cemented layers
should not exceed that typical of cracked cemented materials (Part 2 of the Guide),
irrespective of the actual strength characteristics at the commencement of the overlay
design period.
Up until the 2017 edition of Part 2, in the post-fatigue cracking phase of cemented materials and lean mix
concrete a presumptive vertical modulus of 500 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 was used. The layer was
not sublayered and was considered to be cross-anisotropic, with a degree of anisotropy of 2.
Note that a process was not provided to estimate the design moduli from back-calculated moduli.
Modulus reduction factors
In developing the 2019 edition, PSWG requested the MEP be enhanced by providing a method that adjusted
the existing cemented materials and lean-mix concrete back-calculated moduli for the likelihood of future
fatigue damage during the rehabilitation design period.
There was a lack of data about the reduction of cemented materials and lean-mix concrete moduli with
loading, similar to that for asphalt (Figure 3.9). Pending this data, modulus reduction factors predicted using
Equation 7 were adopted for cemented materials and lean-mix concrete. Note that these factors are only
used if the cemented material or lean-mix concrete has observable fatigue cracking when deflection tested.
Presumptive cracked moduli
In the 2004 Guide and the 2008, 2009 and 2011 editions of Part 5, the existing cemented materials and
lean-mix concrete were assigned a vertical design modulus of 500 MPa regardless of the back-calculated
modulus and condition of the existing layer when designing the rehabilitation. In the 2019 edition of Part 5
the use of these presumptive values changed with the development of a method of adjusting the
back-calculated moduli using modulus adjustment factors discussed above. The design steps are detailed in
Section 10.7.6 of the 2019 edition and include the use of presumptive moduli for cracked cemented materials
and lean-mix concrete (Table 3.6), these being those used in the design of new pavements
(Austroads 2017).
Table 3.6: Presumptive elastic characterisation of cracked cemented material and lean-mix concrete
Vertical Poisson’s
Cracked material EV/EH Sub-layered
modulus (MPa) ratio
Cemented material 500(1) 2.0 0.35 No
Lean-rolled concrete (cracked by normal traffic) 500 2.0 0.35 Yes
Lean-rolled concrete (cracked by construction traffic) 350 2.0 0.35 Yes
Lean-screeded concrete 700 1.0 0.20 No
1 This value applies for cemented materials for which a design modulus of 2500 MPa or more is used in design of new
pavement layers. For lower design moduli, the presumptive cracked modulus is 1/5th of the design modulus.
Source: Adapted from Austroads (2017).

3.5.8 Foamed Bitumen Stabilised Materials
There was a deficiency of available data to provide guidance about the determination of design moduli of
existing FBS layers.
In terms of adjusting back-calculated moduli from the measurement temperature to the WMAPT, field data
was not available about the temperature variation of back-calculated moduli of cracked FBS layers. Pending
this data, the modulus temperature adjustment for sound FBS layers (Equation 8) was adopted.
There was lack of data about the reduction in FBS moduli with loading, similar to the asphalt data
(Figure 3.9). Pending this data, modulus reduction factors predicted using Equation 7 were adopted. Note
that these factors are only used if the FBS is fatigue cracked.
For asphalt, Figure 3.8 provides maximum presumptive moduli for crocodile cracked asphalt. Again, there
was a lack of data in relation to the modulus of crocodile cracked FBS. A vertical design modulus of 500 MPa
was adopted, this being lower than the values for asphalt and equal to the presumptive value for cracked
cemented materials.
3.6 Determining Design Moduli Foamed Bitumen Stabilised Materials
3.6.1 Introduction
Austroads procedures for the design of new pavements (Austroads 2017) incorporating FBS materials have
yet to be developed and included in Part 2 of the Guide. Research currently in progress is anticipated to
assist in developing these procedures.
Hence, to use the MEP to design strengthening treatments using FBS materials, Part 5 needed to provide a
method for the determination of FBS design moduli.
In the 2004 Pavement Rehabilitation Guide and the 2008 and 2009 editions of Part 5, procedures were not
provided for the design of FBS strengthening treatments.
In the 2011 edition of Part 5, procedures for the structural design of FBS treatments were described for the
first time based on the research by Gonzalez (Austroads 2011b) extracts from which are included below.
In the 2019 edition of Part 5, Appendix H describes the elastic characterisation consistent with the 2011
edition. This section describes the development of this elastic characterisation method.
The FBS design modulus is determined from the measured indirect tensile modulus. Commonly, such moduli
are those measured as part of the FBS mix design.
3.6.2 FBS Modulus Adjustment for Temperature
Where the in-service pavement temperature (WMAPT) differs from the temperature at which the laboratory
indirect tensile resilient modulus is measured (25 °C), the measured mix design modulus needs to be
adjusted to the in-service temperature.
Leek (2001) conducted several indirect tensile resilient modulus tests at different temperatures (between
20 °C and 35 °C), on cored specimens extracted from FBS pavements in the City of Canning. The original
pavement before rehabilitation nominally consisted of:
• a thin asphalt surface
• a granular base
• a granular subbase.

The bitumen content used in the FBS treatment ranged from 3.1% to 4.2%, and quick lime was used as
active filler (between 0.5% and 1.5%). The recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) content of the FBS mix was
about 10–15%.
Indirect tensile resilient modulus tests were also conducted at different load rise times (between 25 ms and
100 ms) and the results are listed in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: Effect of temperature and loading rate on FBS indirect tensile modulus
Temperature Load rise time Modulus

(°C) (ms) (MPa)
20 25 13 348
25 25 12 122
35 25 9 403
20 30 12 982
25 30 11 826
35 30 9 089
20 50 11 956
25 50 10 997
35 50 8 208
20 75 11 141
25 75 10 340
35 75 7 508
20 100 10 564
25 100 9 873
35 100 7 012
Source: Leek (2001).
The Table 3.7 data is plotted in Figure 3.13 in relation to modulus variation with temperature.

Figure 3.13: Variation of indirect tensile modulus with temperature
14000
rise time 25 ms: E = 21608e-0.024T
13000 rise time 30 ms : E = 21266e-0.024T
rise time 50 ms: E = 20339e-0.026T
12000
rise time 75 ms: E = 19640e-0.027T
11000 rise time 100 ms: E = 19165e-0.028T
Modulus 10000
(MPa)
9000
rise time 25 ms
8000 rise time 30 ms
rise time 50 ms
rise time 75 ms
7000
rise time 100 ms
6000
20 25 30 35 40
Temperature °C
Based on this data Equation 8 was determined to adjust the measured indirect tensile modulus at a rise time
of 40 ms and test temperature of 25 °C to the WMAPT.
Modulus at WMAPT 8
= exp(-0.025[WMAPT-T])
Modulus at test temperature (T)
where
T = temperature of indirect tensile resilient modulus test (°C)
In California, Fu and Harvey (2007) performed a temperature sensitivity study on a pavement rehabilitated
using FBS. The original structure before rehabilitation contained conventional asphalt with a nominal
thickness of 150 mm. The existing asphalt layer was recycled with some existing weathered granite
subgrade to produce a FBS layer 200 mm thick, hence the RAP content of the FBS mix was approximately
75% of the total mass. In the FBS treatment, the nominal Portland cement and bitumen contents were 1.0%
and 2.5%, respectively. The FBS layer was surfaced with a thin (37 mm) asphalt wearing course.
FWD deflection testing was carried out after one year (2003) and three years (2005) after rehabilitation: at
both times the deflections were measured over a range of pavement temperatures. The modulus of the FBS
layer was back-calculated from the FWD deflection bowls.
The relationships between FBS temperature at 150 mm depth and the back-calculated FBS modulus in 2003
are shown in Figure 3.14a; the results for 2005 are plotted in Figure 3.14b. Data at both times showed a
trend of decreasing FBS modulus with increasing temperature. In the 2003 data, this trend appears to
plateau at temperatures lower than 22 °C. In the 2005 data, there are no data at temperatures below 22 °C.

Figure 3.14: Relationship between temperature and back-calculated FBS modulus
2003 data
2005 data
Source: Fu and Harvey (2007).

From this data Fu and Harvey derived the following modulus-temperature equation (Equation 9).
𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟 (𝑇𝑇0 ) = 10𝛼𝛼(𝑇𝑇−𝑇𝑇0) 𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟 (𝑇𝑇) 9
where
Mr(T0) = resilient modulus at reference temperature T0 (MPa)
Mr(T) = resilient modulus at temperature T (MPa)
α = temperature coefficient (1/°C)
The temperature sensitivity coefficient for the 2003 data is 0.030 from regression when the material
temperature is higher than 22 °C, and it is assumed that the FBS mix has approximately constant modulus at
temperatures below 22 °C. The temperature sensitivity coefficient for the 2005 data is 0.0164.
Equation 9 was converted to an exponential relationship consistent with Equation 8 as given in Equation 10.
Modulus at WMAPT 10
= exp(β[WMAPT - T])
Modulus at test temperature (T)
where
β −0.069 after one year of construction

=
−0.038 after three years of construction
T = temperature of indirect tensile resilient modulus test (°C)
Figure 3.15 shows Equation 10 based on Fu and Harvey’s back-calculated modulus data, together with the
relationship derived from the City of Canning field cores. The temperature adjustment curve for asphalt
(Austroads 2017) is also included in the figure for comparison.

Figure 3.15: Variation of modulus with temperature
1.6
Using indirect tensile resilient modulus
1.4 tests in the City of Canning (pavements
with ~10-15% RAP) and 3.1-4.2% foamed
bitumen content (Leek 2001)
1.2 Using FWD data after three years of
construction in California. Pavement
with ~75% RAP and 2.5% bitumen
1.0
content (Fu & Harvey 2007)
Modulus at WMAPT
Temperature sensitivity increases

Modulus at 25 °C
0.8
with increase in the residual

0.6
Using FWD data after one year of
construction in California.
Pavement with ~75% RAP and
0.4
bitumen content
2.5% bitumen content (Fu &
Harvey 2007)
0.2 Hot Mix Asphalt
curve, Austroads
(2008a)
0.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature (°C)
Figure 3.15 shows that laboratory measurements conducted on the City of Canning pavement cores are less
sensitive to temperature than Californian data. The higher Californian mix temperature sensitivity may have
been due to the higher RAP in the rehabilitated pavement (approximately 75% of the FBS mix). In the City of
Canning pavements, the RAP content was approximately 10–15% (Leek 2001), hence the residual bitumen
content and the temperature sensitivity of the mix is comparatively lower. Conversely asphalt is more
sensitive to temperature as depicted in Figure 3.15.
Since FBS treatments are more commonly applied in Australia to thin bituminous surfaced granular
pavements than thick asphalt pavements, the RAP contents of the FBS mixes are generally less than 20%.
Accordingly, Part 5 recommends the use of β = −0.025 in Equation 8 for FBS compared to β = −0.08 for
dense graded asphalt in Part 2 of the Guide.
3.6.3 FBS Modulus Adjustment for Rate of Loading
Where the in-service rate of loading (traffic speed) differs from the rate of loading at which the laboratory
indirect tensile resilient modulus is measured (rise time of 40 ms), the measured modulus needs to be
adjusted to the in-service heavy vehicle traffic speed. This section describes how the rate of loading
adjustment for FBS mixes was developed.
Again Table 3.7 obtained by Leek (2001) was used to develop the rate of loading adjustment. As seen from
Figure 3.16, at a temperature of 35 °C the modulus variation with rise time appeared to be different from the
values at 20 °C and 25 °C.

Figure 3.16: Variation of indirect tensile modulus with indirect tensile test rise time
14000
13000
12000 20°C : E = 22999RT-0.168
11000
Modulus
(MPa) 10000
25°C : E = 19534RT-0.148
9000
35°C : E = 17844RT-0.219
8000
7000
6000
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Rise time (ms)
For the 2011 edition of Part 5, the modulus adjustment for load rating was developed using:
• From Figure 3.16 data at 20 °C and 25 °C, modulus varied with the rise time power of −0.16. As rise time
is inversely related to the speed of loading, this translates to modulus varying with speed (V) to the power
of 0.16.
• In developing the adjustment of measured asphalt indirect tensile modulus for loading rate for the 2004
Guide procedures for the design of new pavements (Austroads 2004c), an indirect tensile modulus
measured at rise time of 40 ms was considered equivalent to a flexural modulus measured using
sinusoidal loading at a frequency of 20 Hz (Jameson in Austroads 2008b). In turn, 20 Hz was considered
equivalent to a vehicle speed of 126 km/h (i.e. 20 x 2π).
Using these values, Equation 11 was obtained, which results in an adjustment factor of 1 when the vehicle
speed is 126 km/h. This relationship was provided in the 2011 and 2019 editions of Part 5.
Modulus at speed V 11
= 0.46V0.16
Modulus at 40 ms rise time loading rate
where
V = heavy vehicle design speed (km/h)
An oversight in developing Equation 11 was that in 2008 the procedures for the design of new pavements
(Austroads 2008c) was changed to provide a new asphalt loading rate adjustment relationship. As discussed
by Jameson (Austroads 2008b), an indirect tensile modulus measured at rise time of 40 ms was considered
equivalent to a flexural modulus measured using sinusoidal loading at a frequency of 14.8 Hz rather than
20 Hz. In turn, 14.8 Hz was considered equivalent to a vehicle speed of 93 km/h (i.e. 14.8 x 2π). For a
design speed of 60 km/h the revised relationship results in about a 5% increase in design modulus which
reduces the required FBS layer by 5 mm or less. Given the minor impact of this error, it is proposed that
Austroads defer issuing an erratum to Part 5 until the findings of a current laboratory characterisation
research project (APT 6157) can be considered.

3.7 Performance Relationships

A critical element of the MEP are the performance relationships used to estimate allowable traffic loading for
each distress mode from the critical strains calculated using the linear elastic model (e.g. CIRCLY,
AustPads).
Ideally these relationships would be established by calibrating the MEP design system against field
performance data of rehabilitated pavements. In the absence of this data, in preparing the 2011 and 2019
editions, PSWG agreed to continue to use the relationships used for the design of new flexible pavements
(Austroads 2017). Hence care needs to be taken in the selection of design moduli for use in the MEP to
ensure the moduli are derived in a manner consistent with the design of new pavements. For this reason,
design moduli are usually not simply the back-calculated layer moduli but are derived after consideration of
pavement investigation data, design moduli for new pavements and appropriate in-service moisture
conditions.
Note that the fatigue lives of existing asphalt, cemented material, lean-mix concrete and FBS layers in the
pavement are not assessed as procedures have yet to be developed to estimate their remaining structural
life of such layers. It is the fatigue life prediction relationships for the bound treatment materials and the
subgrade strain relationship to predict the surface permanent deformation of treated pavements that are
used in the MEP.
In summary, the MEP uses the following performance relationships from the design procedures for new
flexible pavements Austroads (2017):
• asphalt fatigue relationship, Equation 25 of Austroads (2017)
• cemented materials fatigue relationship as discussed in Section 6.4.6 (Austroads 2017)
• lean-mix concrete fatigue relationship, Equation 27 of Austroads (2017)
• pavement surface permanent deformation, Equation 3 of Austroads (2017).
Pending further research, the Austroads design procedure for new pavements does not include a
performance relationship to predict the fatigue life of FBS layers. However, a performance relationship is
included in Part 5 for the design of FBS rehabilitation treatments as discussed below.
In the 2011 edition of Part 5 an interim FBS fatigue relationship was described based on the review by
Gonzalez (Austroads 2011b). The Austroads (2012) asphalt fatigue relationship was modified as shown in
Equation 12 to exclude reliability factors.
6918(1.08 + 0.856Vb )
5
12
N=� �
E 0.36 × με
where
N = allowable number of load repetitions to FBS fatigue
Vb = percentage by volume of bitumen in the FBS material (normally between 6% and 8%)
E = design modulus of FBS material (MPa)
µε = horizontal tensile strain at bottom of FBS layer produced by the load (microstrain)

The decision to exclude a process for designing for project reliability was based on the following:
• Unlike asphalt, when the 2019 edition was being prepared a presumptive laboratory fatigue relationship
had not yet been determined for FBS materials. It is unknown whether FBS fatigue life varies with
modulus and strain as provided in the Shell (1978) laboratory asphalt fatigue relationship which is
assumed in Equation 12.
• The shift factor relating mean laboratory fatigue life to a mean in-service fatigue life has not yet been
determined.
• Information about the variability in FBS fatigue performance between projects needs further research.
In the 2019 edition of Part 5, the Equation 12 FBS fatigue relationship was retained based on the findings of
Jameson (Austroads 2018) and pending the findings of Austroads research to develop a laboratory fatigue
relationship and hence a presumptive in-service fatigue relationship.

4. Summary and Conclusions

provided guidance on the selection and design of strengthening treatments to rehabilitate pavements. These
methods were provided in Pavement Design: a Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavements
(NAASRA 1987, Austroads 1992), Pavement Rehabilitation (Austroads 2004a) and subsequently in the
1st edition of the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 5: Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Design
(Austroads 2009). In the 2008 1st edition of Part 5, the design guidance was extended to cover lightly
trafficked roads. The technical basis for the structural design of asphalt and granular overlays in these
publications and the 1987 NAASRA Guide has been previously documented (Austroads 2008a).
In 2009 the 2nd edition of Part 5 was published with updated pavement distress photographs.
Described in this report is the technical basis of the changes made to Part 5 in the 3rd edition
(Austroads 2011a) and the 4th edition (Austroads 2019a).
Concerning the empirical design of granular overlay thickness, two significant changes were made in the
4th edition, namely:
• improved guidance was provided on the calculation of characteristic deflection values
• procedures were developed for overlays to be designed from maximum deflections measured using the
Traffic Speed Deflectometer.
In relation to the design of asphalt overlays, prior to the 4th edition a design chart method was provided in
addition to a general mechanistic procedure (GMP). In preparing the 4th edition in 2019 it was decided to
delete the chart-based method as its use was diminishing due to a number of limitations.
In the 2011 3rd edition, more detailed guidance was given about the design of pavement and subgrade
stabilisation strengthening treatments using the GMP, including the design of subgrade stabilisation
treatments and cementitious and bituminous stabilisation of existing pavement materials.
The 4th edition of Part 5 published in 2019 enhanced the GMP and the method was renamed the
mechanistic-empirical procedure (MEP) after deletion of the simplified design chart method for asphalt
overlays. An important aspect of the MEP is that it uses the same performance relationships to determine
allowable traffic loadings as used in the mechanistic-empirical method for the design of new pavements
(Part 2, Austroads 2017). An overarching objective of the changes made in the 4th edition of Part 5 was the
need to improve guidance on the determination of design moduli of existing pavement materials and
subgrade.
The key changes to the MEP were:

• The method of calculating the allowable traffic loading of a strengthening treatment was changed to align
with the axle-strain method adopted in Part 2 (Austroads 2017).
• Improved guidance was provided on the back-calculation of moduli of existing pavement layers and
subgrade, including a method to adjust back-calculated isotropic moduli to anisotropic values, selection of
deflection bowls and guidance on number of layers.
• In relation to the determination of subgrade design moduli, guidance was provided on the maximum
values to improve consistency with the mechanistic-empirical (ME) method for the design of new
pavements in Part 2.

• In Part 2, design rules are provided to sublayer selected subgrade materials and unbound granular
materials and assign design moduli to each sublayer. Additional guidance was provided in the 4th edition
of Part 5 about the translation of back-calculated layer moduli to design moduli consistent with these
Part 2 methods.
• Up until the 4th edition, in designing strengthening treatments existing bound materials (e.g. asphalt,
cemented materials) were assigned presumptive moduli assuming they would develop crocodile cracking
during the treatment design period. As this assumption may be overly conservative for some projects, a
method was provided in the 4th edition to determine the design moduli from back-calculated values
considering the predicted modulus reductions due to fatigue damage during the design period.

References
ASTM International 2015, Standard guide for calculating in situ equivalent elastic moduli of pavement
materials using layered elastic theory, D5858-96 (2015), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA.
Austroads 2004b, Technical basis of Austroads design procedures for flexible overlays on flexible
pavements, AP-T34-04, Austroads, Sydney, NSW
Austroads 2008b, Technical basis of Austroads design procedures for flexible overlays on flexible
pavements, AP-T99-08, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011b, Review of structural design procedures for foamed bitumen pavements, AP-T188-11,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2017, Guide to pavement technology part 2: pavement structural design, edn 4.2 2018,
AGPT02-17, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2018, Design and performance of foamed bitumen stabilised pavements, AP-T336-18, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2019a, Guide to pavement technology part 5: pavement evaluation and treatment design,
Austroads 2019b, Improved methods of using pavement deflection data in the design of rehabilitation
treatments, AP-T350-19, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2021, Technical basis of Austroads guide to pavement technology part 2: pavement structural
design, AP-T356-21, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Federal Highway Administration 2017, Deflectometer data with mechanistic-empirical design and analysis,
volume III: guidelines for deflection testing, analysis, and interpretation, FHWA-HRT-16-011, FHWA,
Washington, DC, USA.
Fu, P & Harvey, J 2007, ‘Temperature sensitivity of foamed asphalt mix stiffness: field and lab study’,
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 137–45.
Jameson, GW 2000, ‘Full-depth asphalt pavement fatigue: review of Mulgrave ALF trial data’, RC1390,
ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Jameson, GW, Sharp, KG & Vertessy, NJ 1992, Full-depth asphalt fatigue under accelerated loading, the
Mulgrave (Victoria) ALF trial, 1989/1991, ARR 224, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South,
Vic.
Leek, C 2001, ‘In situ foamed bitumen stabilisation: the city of Canning experience’, ARRB conference, 20th,
2001, Melbourne, Victoria, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Odemark, N 1949, Investigation on the elastic properties of soils and the design of pavements according to
the theory of elasticity, Statens Vaginstitut, Stockholm, Sweden.
Potter, DW, Jameson, GW, Vuong, B, Moffatt, M, Yeo, R, Makarov, A & Armstrong, P 1994, ‘The
development of the Australian mechanistic approach to overlay design’, ARRB conference, 17th, 1994,
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2012, Pavement rehabilitation manual, TMR,
Brisbane, Qld.
Shell 1978, Shell pavement design manual, Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, London, UK.
Vuong, B 1991, EFROMD2 user’s manual: a computer-based program for back-calculating elastic properties
from pavement deflection bowls, version 1, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Wardle, LJ 1999, CIRCLY 4 users' manual, MINCAD Systems Pty Ltd, Richmond, Vic.
Superseded Austroads Guides
Austroads 1992, Pavement design: a guide to the structural design of road pavements, AP-17/92, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2004a, Pavement rehabilitation: a guide to the design of rehabilitation treatments for road
pavements, AP-G78-04, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2004c, Pavement design: a guide to the structural design of road pavements, AP-G17-04,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2008c, Guide to pavement technology part 2: pavement structural design, AGPT02-08, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009, Guide to pavement technology part 5: pavement evaluation and treatment design,
Austroads 2012, Guide to pavement technology part 2: pavement structural design, AGPT02-12, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1987, Pavement design: a guide to the structural
design of road pavements, NAASRA, Sydney.


AP-T357-21 Technical Basis Guide To Pavement Technology Part 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-T357-21 Technical Basis Guide To Pavement Technology Part 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report

Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to

Geoffrey Jameson Austroads Ltd.

Abstract About Austroads

Publication date May 2021 • Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics

The key changes to the MEP were:

Austroads 2021 | page i

Austroads 2021 | page ii

Austroads 2021 | page i

Austroads 2021 | page ii

Austroads 2021 | page 1

Austroads 2021 | page 2

2. Empirical Design of Granular Overlays

Austroads 2021 | page 3

2.2 Calculation of Characteristic Deflections

Table 2.1: 2011 Guide recommended values of f

Percentage of all deflection

* f values for 30 or more deflection measurements.

** After identifying areas to be patched/reconstructed.

Source: Adapted from Austroads (2011a).

Austroads 2021 | page 4

Table 2.2: 2019 Guide recommended values of f

Number of deflection measurements* f*

* After identifying areas to be patched/reconstructed.

Source: Austroads (2019a).

2.3 Overlay Design Using Traffic Speed Deflectometer Deflections

Austroads 2021 | page 5

3. Flexible Pavement Treatment Design Using

Austroads 2021 | page 6

3.2 Overview of MEP

Layer thickness + Material properties + Design traffic → Pavement response

Performance prediction model

Material properties + Pavement response → Pavement performance

Austroads 2021 | page 7

For existing pavement:

Inverse response-to-load model

Layer thickness + Deflection + Pavement response → Material properties

For the treated pavement:

Layer thickness + Material properties + Design traffic → Pavement response

Performance prediction model (other than existing bound materials)

Material properties + Pavement response → Pavement performance

Austroads 2021 | page 8

3.3 Consideration of Strength Variability of Existing Pavements

Back-calculated modulus variability is discussed in Section 3.4.3.

3.4 Back-calculation of In situ Moduli

Austroads 2021 | page 9

3.4.2 Austroads Back-calculation Algorithm

3.4.3 Considerations of Modulus Variability

Back-calculated layer moduli (MPa)

1 Average for chainages 185 and 195 m.

Source: Austroads (2019b).

Austroads 2021 | page 10

Source: Austroads (2019b).

3.4.4 Adjustment of Isotropic Moduli to Anisotropic Values

Austroads 2021 | page 11

Three types of pavement structure were investigated with different complexities:

The results are discussed below.

Modulus adjustment in a homogeneous half-space

Moduli adjustment for sprayed seal surfaced unbound granular pavements

Moduli adjustment for pavements with bound materials

Austroads 2021 | page 12

200 mm asphalt (E=3000 MPa) on semi-infinite subgrade

3.4.5 Guidance on Layer Thicknesses