TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1629
98-0260 159
Calibration of Mechanistic-Empirical
Rutting Model for In-Service Pavements
HESHAM A. ALI, SHIRAZ D. TAYABJI, AND FRANCESCA LA TORRE
Rutting is a major failure mode for flexible pavements. Pavement engi-
neers have been trying to control and arrest the development of rutting
for years. Many models are available to relate pavement rutting to design
features, traffic loading, and climatic conditions. These models range
from purely empirical to mechanistic models. Mechanistic-empirical
models (the Asphalt Institute and Shell) were used to predict the devel-
opment of rutting for 61 Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) test
sections. The rutting damage, calculated using these models, did not
appear to be a good predictor of the observed rutting depth. A new rut-
ting model was developed and calibrated using the data from the 61
LTPP sections. The model accounts for the plastic deformation in all
pavement layers and allows the use of actual axle load and type, rather
than the equivalent single axle load, in characterizing traffic.
Rutting is recognized as the most common problem in flexible pave-
ments. Two analytical approaches have been used to address this
problem. The first is an empirical approach, in which pavement fea-
tures, structural and physical properties, loading and environmental
conditions are statistically related to the development of rutting. One
example of that is the recent study of rutting using the Long-Term
Pavement Performance (LTPP) data base (1). The second approach
is the mechanistic approach, in which the mechanism of rutting is
hypothesized and a structural response is assumed to be related to
rutting. For instance, the compressive strain at the top of the sub-
grade has been used as an important indicator of rutting. In this
approach, each load application causes an incremental damage,
based on the magnitude of the critical strain. The damage is then
accumulated to produce a measure of pavement condition with
respect to rutting.
With respect to mechanistic models, two approaches have been
considered for modeling rutting. The first approach, typically
referred to as the subgrade strain model approach, assumes that most
of the rutting is due to permanent deformation within the subgrade
layer and that the deformation within the asphalt concrete (AC) and
base/subbase layers is negligible as the quality of these layers is con-
trolled through mix design and construction specifications. The
second approach considers permanent deformation within each layer
of the pavement. Although several techniques have been proposed
for the second approach, the approach has not been widely used
because of the complexity in obtaining elastoplastic or viscoplastic
characterization for the various paving materials.
Recently, FHWA has sponsored an effort to evaluate the reliabil-
ity of the mechanistic-empirical approach in predicting pavement
rutting (2; see also the other paper by Ali and Tayabji in this Record).
In this paper, the findings of this study and the development of a new
rutting model are presented.
H. A. Ali and S. D. Tayabji, ERES Consultants, Inc., 9030 Red Branch Road,
Suite 210, Columbia, MD 21045. F. La Torre, University of Rome, “La
Sapienza,” Road Engineering, Rome, Italy.
Paper No.
RUTTING DAMAGE ANALYSIS
BASED ON LTPP DATA
In this paper the Asphalt Institute (AI) (3) and the Shell (4) trans-
fer functions were used to predict pavement rutting damage for 61
LTPP test sections. A number of analysis steps were performed
before damage analysis. First, the pavement was modeled as an
elastic multilayered system. Falling-weight deflectometer deflec-
tion data were used to backcalculate the layer moduli. Second,
adjustments were applied to traffic loads and the structural proper-
ties of the pavement to account for the long-term, seasonal, and spa-
tial variations in the system. Third, a forward structural analysis
was performed to calculate the critical strain values specified in the
selected transfer functions. Fourth, damage analysis was performed
to calculate and accumulate the theoretical damage. It should be
noted that a complete description of the analysis steps and tabula-
tion of the data used in this analysis may be found in other work by
Ali and Tayabji (2; see also the next paper in this Record).
Figure 1 shows the relationship between observed rut depth and
calculated rutting damage ratio for GPS-1. Figure 1(a), in which the
damage was based on the AI model, shows that most of the data
points meet the one-point AI model criterion—that is, the observed
rutting is less than 13 to 19 mm (0.5 to 0.75 in.) if the computed
damage is less than 100 percent. Only 2 out of 61 sections of GPS-1
did not meet the AI criterion. However, there is a large scatter of
the data points in the plot of permanent deformation damage ratio
versus rut depth. The AI model presumes that all pavement layers
above the subgrade do not contribute much to rutting. Conse-
quently, the plastic characteristics of the upper pavement layers are
excluded from the analysis. This may have resulted in the scatter
(due to the absence of other predictor variables) in the data points
shown in Figure 1(a).
Figure 1(b) is a plot of the rut depth versus the total damage ratio
(calculated using the Shell model). Similarly to the AI rutting
model, the figure shows that the Shell model does meet the one-
point criterion of less than 13 mm (0.5 in.) rutting if the damage ratio
is less than 1.0. However, the expected S-shaped trend in data points
cannot be observed.
Figure 1 shows no consistent trend in the relationship between the
observed rutting versus the computed damage ratio. The data do not
exhibit the expected S-shaped trend that describes a slowing in the
rate of rutting development. The wide vertical scatter of the data
points may indicate a significant contribution to rutting by other
nonsubgrade layers. Unexpectedly, some sections with the largest
rutting damage ratio exhibited a small rut depth. Conversely, many
sections with large rut depth had a small damage ratio. It is appar-
ent that the AI and the Shell damage ratio is not a good predictor to
rut depth.
160 Paper No. 98-0260
FIGURE 1 Comparison between observed rutting and predicted damage ratio for GPS-1 based on AI model (top)
and Shell model (bottom).
NEED FOR NEW MODEL
As shown above, the subgrade strain-based rutting models devel-
oped by the AI and Shell have serious limitations. These models
neglect the contributions of the AC layer, the base and subbase lay-
ers to rutting and do not account for “rate-hardening” in the pro-
gression of rutting with time. Data from the AASHO Road Test
experiments showed that the subgrade contributed only about 9 per-
cent to the total measured rutting. The AC, base, and subbase layers
contributed about 34 percent, 14 percent, and 45 percent, respec-
tively (5). Therefore, it is important to consider the contribution of
all pavement layers to rutting.
A number of models are available to consider the additive per-
manent deformation from all pavement layers. The direct method
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1629
(6), the VESYS (7), and the Ohio State (8) models are examples of
this method. However, none of the available model forms directly
allows use of axle load/type combinations to characterize traffic. In
addition, they require material parameters that are not available in
the LTPP data base. The following section describes the develop-
ment and calibration of a mechanistic-based rutting model that can
consider the actual axle load spectrum.
Model Formulation
Let it be assumed that there are k loading groups (axle/load combi-
nations), each Load Group i is associated with a vertical elastic
compressive strain in pavement Layer j (there are L number of
Ali et al. Paper No. 98-0260 161

pavement layers), eei,j. Each Load Group i has number of counts ni where n1́j is the equivalent number of the first loading group appli-
of axle i. The plastic strain is assumed to be a linear function of the cation in the second group’s space (scale), for Layer j, and may be
plastic deformation and, at the same time, it is negatively related to calculated from the following equation:
the number of load applications by a power model. The negative
power relationship reflects the hardening effect of pavement due to n1, j Nf 1, j
= ( 4)
repetitive loading. The following model relates the vertical com- n1′, j Nf 2, j
pressive plastic strain in a given layer resulting from one load incre-
ment of Axle Group i (epij) to the elastic compressive strain in where Nf 1, j is the number of load applications of Load Group 1 to
Layer j resulting from the load passage, eei,j, and the number of load failure in Layer j, and Nf 2, j is the number of load applications of
applications, N. Load Group 2 to failure in Layer j. That is, the ratio between two
load counts equals the ratio between the number of repetitions of
e pi , j = µ j ∗ e ei , j ∗ N − α j (1) each to cause critical damage. The critical plastic strain at Layer j,
epc,j, is calculated by
where
µj = slope of elastic strain/plastic strain line for Layer j, µ j ee1, j 1− α j
−αj = negative exponent to reflect hardening of Layer j with epc, j = N
1 − α j f 1, j
repetitive loading, and
1
N = cumulative number of load applications. ep (1 − α j ) 1− α j
Nf 1, j =  c, j 
Figure 2 represents the three-dimensional plastic strain model.  µ j ee1, j 
In each loading group i, the amount of plastic strain will differ from 1
one axle to the next, although the elastic strain is assumed to be ep (1 − α j ) 1− α j
N f 2, j =  c, j  (5)
constant for the group. That is, the first axle will cause more per-  µ 2 ee2, j 
manent deformation than the second, because of the hardening
effect. The total plastic strain in Layer j due to the first load group 1
is calculated by: N f 1, j  ee2, j  1− αj
=  (6)
n1
N f 2, j  ee1, j 
−αj
e pi =1, j = ∫ µ j ee1, j N dN 1
o n1′, j N f 2, j  ee1, j  1− α j
= =  ( 7)
µ j ee1, j 1− α j n1, j N f 1, j  ee2, j 
= n (2)
1− αj 1
1
 ee1, j  1− α j
where ni is the number of applications of Load Group i. n1′, j = n1, j   (8)
 ee2, j 
n1′ , j + n2 , j
−αj
epi = 2, j = ∫ µ j ee2, j N dN
µ j ee2, j   ee1, j  1− α j
1

1− α j
n1, j
ep2, j =     + 
1 − α j   ee2, j 
n1, j n2 , j

µ j ee2, j 
=
1 − α j 1, j [
(n′ + n2, j )1− α j − (n1′, j )1− αj ] (3)
1− α j
 
1− α  
1

− n1, j  ee1, j  j  
The cumulative plastic strain for the second loading group is   ee2, j    ( 9)
calculated as follows:

Similarly, the cumulative plastic strain in Layer j resulting from

nk axle applications of Load Group k is

µ j eek , j
epk , j =
1 − αj [(nk′ , j + nk , j )1− α j − (nk′ , j )1− α j ] (10)

where
1
k
 eei , j  1− α j
nk′ , j = ∑ ni   (11)
i =1  eek , j 

Equation 11 is the equivalent number of load applications of all pre-

vious load groups in the k group scale. The cumulative plastic strain
for all load groups in Layer j may be obtained by

µ j ee j
[ ]
k

1 − α j ( i, j
ep j = ∑ n′ + n i , j ) j − (ni′, j )1− α j
1− α
(12)
FIGURE 2 Conceptual elastic-plastic strain relationship. i =1
162 Paper No. 98-0260 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1629

Assuming homogeneous materials, the parameters µj, αj are con- ing the load counts into any other loading group should not give a
stant for each layer. If we have L layers, each having hj thickness, different result.
then the total plastic deformation, ρp, is obtained by It should be noted that the model does not account for the lateral
flow resulting from the horizontal shearing strain in the layers. The
µ
[ ]
L k model may be modified to use the shearing strain as another predic-
ρp = ∑ hj 1 − αj j ∑ eei, j (ni′, j + ni, j )1− α j − (ni′, j )1− α j (13) tor to rutting. However, the regression coefficients of the model will
j =1 i =1
partially compensate for the absence of the second predictor. It is
The coefficients µ, α for each layer may be evaluated by labora- also possible to formulate a model in terms of the elastic deflection
tory testing or by using numerical optimization techniques, given within each layer.
rutting and traffic data.
To simplify Equation 13, it may be prudent to convert the num-
ber of applications of all load groups to a single load level, using MODEL CALIBRATION
Equation 1. The concept was applied above to convert the counts of
a previous load group to an equivalent count (in terms of the group The parameters µj, αj may be determined for each layer using
in question). Equation 8 may be used for this purpose; for example, numerical optimization. To perform this task, it is required to run a
we may convert the counts of all load groups into an equivalent structural analysis program to calculate the vertical compressive
count of the first load group. strain in the middle of each layer (assuming that the middepth strain
1 1 1 represents the layer average strain). It should be noted that the for-
 eei , j  1− α j  ee2, j  1− α j K  eek , j  1− α j mulation can be modified to use the elastic deformation in each layer
Ne1, j = n1, j   + n2, j   + + nk , j  
 eei , j   ee1, j   ee1, j  (the difference between the elastic deformation at the top and at the
1
bottom of each layer) as a predictor of rutting. In that case, the
k
 eei , j  1− α j assumption of middepth representative strain will not be needed.
Ne1, j = ∑ ni, j  eeij  (14) Finding the set of parameters µ and α for each layer involves
i =1
solving the following optimization problem:
where Ne1 , j is the equivalent number of applications of all groups,
in terms of the first group. It should not make a difference if other Minimize
load groups were used instead of the first group, in the subsequent
S
analysis. F= ∑ (ρi − RDi )
2
(18)
In this case we convert the number of load applications into Ne1, j i =1
(corresponding to ee). If eej = ee1, j , i.e., converting to the first load-
ing group, then the first term equals n1, j. The cumulative plastic where
strain corresponding to Ne1, j applications may be calculated by ρi = calculated cumulative rut depth from Equation 17, for
Section i;
µ j ee1, j
ep j =
1 − αj
( Ne1, j )1− α j (15) RDi = observed rut depth in Section i; and
S = total number of sections.

and the cumulative strain in all layers may be calculated by The results of this calibration is a set of average µj and αj values
for each layer of the pavement. If such values yield a good fit
L µj (small standard error of estimate), then the model and the coeffi-
∑ ee ( Ne1, j ) j
1− α
ep = (16) cients may be used to produce a rough estimate of rutting. It should
j =1 1 − α j 1, j
be noted that, ideally, µj and αj are site-specific—that is, each sec-
tion may have its unique parameters. However, at this time, there
Multiplying the plastic strain of each layer by the layer thickness to
are not enough data points to support the calibration of the model
obtain the plastic deformation, and substituting Ne1, j from Equation
for each section individually. For example, a pavement section
14, gives
with five layers has 10 unknowns, two for each layer, but may have
1− α j only one rutting value. The availability of historical traffic as well
L µj  k 1

ni (eei, j )1− α j 
∑ 1 − α j ∑
ρp = hj (17) as time-series distress survey is necessary to perform a site-specific
j =1 i =1  calibration.
where
ρp = cumulative permanent deformation in all layers, from all
Calibration Results
load groups (rut depth);
eei,j = vertical compressive strain in middle of Layer j, due to
A total of 61 GPS-1 sections were used to calibrate the model. Ver-
passage of axle of Group i; and
tical elastic compressive strains were calculated in the middle of
hj = thickness of Layer j.
each layer. The subgrade was divided into a number of layers until
The subgrade may be divided into several layers and the calculations the strain value approached zero. An error minimization algorithm
performed until the vertical elastic strain approaches zero; the was implemented to find the parameters µ and α for each pavement
subgrade thickness is then determined accordingly. layer, such that the squared deviation between observed and cal-
Equation 17 shows that the term ee1, j, the term associated with the culated rutting was minimal. The calibration results are given in
first loading group, was canceled out, which indicates that convert- Table 1.
Ali et al. Paper No. 98-0260 163

TABLE 1 Calibration Results

The model may be rewritten in the following form: Substituting the values of coefficients µ and α in Equation 19
gives
1− α AC
µ AC  k 1

ni (eei , AC )1− α AC 
1 − α AC ∑
0.9
ρ p = hAC k 1.111 
i =1  ρ p = 0.00011 ∗ hAC ∑ ni (eei , AC ) 
 i =1 
1− α Base
µ Base  k 1

∑ ni (eei , Base )1− α Base 
0.05
+ h Base k 20 

1 − α Base  i =1  + 23.26 ∗ hBase ∑ ni (eei , Base ) 
 i =1 
1− α Subgrade
µ Subgrade  k 1

∑ ni (eei ,Subgrade )1− αSubgrade 
0.356
+ hSubgrade k 2.81 

1 − α Subgrade  i =1  (19) + 0.022 ∗ hSubgrade ∑ ni (eei ,Subgrade ) 
 i =1 
where
ρp = total cumulative rut depth (in same units Goodness of Fit
as h);
i = subscript denoting load groups [e.g., sin- The sum of squared error is 1.49 in.2. The standard error of esti-
gle axle with 40 kN (9,000 lb)]; mate is 4.14 mm (0.164 in.); this is slightly larger than the error in
k = number of load groups; measuring the rut depth [about 2 mm (0.08)]. The relative error (the
h = layer thickness; ratio between the standard error of estimate of the model and the
AC, Base, Subgrade = subscripts denoting AC, base, and sub- standard deviation of observed rutting) is 0.87, hence, the model
grade layers, respectively; provides improved prediction over the mean measured rut depth.
µj = layer parameter representing slope of Figure 3 shows that the residuals are normally distributed. The bias
elastic/plastic strain line; (mean residual) is 0.68 mm (0.027 in.). Fifty-five percent of the
αj = layer parameter, exponent to reflect hard- observations were within an error of ±2.54 mm (±0.1 in.). Eighty
ening of Layer j with repetitive loading; percent of the observations were within ±5 mm (±0.2 in.) error.
and Figure 4 is a plot of the predicted versus observed rut depth. The
eei, j = vertical compressive elastic strain in mid- observations are distributed with a constant variance about the
dle of Layer j, corresponding to Load 45 percent degree line—an indication of a reasonable fit between
Group i. the model and the data. The plot indicates that the model under-

FIGURE 3 Histogram of residuals: y = 61 p 0.1 p normal (x, 0.023512, 0.155123).

164 Paper No. 98-0260
FIGURE 4 Observed versus predicted rut depth (based on calibration data set).
predicted rut depth values for measured rut depth values in excess
of 20 mm (0.8 in.).
The Wilcoxon matched pair test, a nonparametric alternative to
the t-test, was performed to test the hypothesis that the observed and
predicted rutting values are drawn from the same distribution. The
test was significant at the 0.01 level. The test showed that the p-level
was 0.316. Hence, the distributions of the observed and predicted
values are not different at this level of significance.
The model parameters indicate that the AC layer contribution to
surface rutting is marginal for the sections considered in the analy-
sis. The combined base/subbase layer contributed the most to the
measured rutting. The contribution of the subgrade to the mea-
sured rutting was greater than that of the AC layer, but much less
than that of the base/subbase layer. However, the vertical elastic
strain values may not be the same in all layers, and this compari-
son was based on the value of the constant multiplied by the strain
value of each layer. It should be further noted that the model is
very sensitive to the layer moduli used. For example, the apparent
higher contribution of the base/subbase layer to rutting may be due
to the fact that the backcalculated moduli for the base/subbase
were generally low, and in many cases lower than the subgrade
moduli values.
MODEL VALIDATION
The rutting model, described earlier, was calibrated using the rut
depth, as measured in the last rutting survey, and the traffic loading
counts projected up to the date of the last survey. To evaluate the
model accuracy in predicting the rut depth, the model was used to
predict the rut depth at the first rutting survey date, given the traffic
loading counts projected up to that date. The predicted versus
observed values are plotted in Figure 5. The standard error of esti-
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1629
mate of the rut depth was 3.55 mm (0.14 in.), lower than that of the
calibration set.
LTPP Test Section 091047, located in Connecticut, was selected
randomly to compare its rutting development as a function of time,
as predicted using the model, with the actual measured rutting val-
ues. Figure 6 is a graphical presentation of the comparison. The fig-
ure shows the expected rutting of the pavement at ages 0 to 20 years.
Two points are plotted on the graph that represent the actual rutting
values (corresponding to the first and last rutting surveys). The
observed and predicted rut depths matched closely.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER MODELS
Because of the multidimensional nature of the model, a direct com-
parison between the new model and other models can be difficult.
The ratio between the cumulative plastic strain and the elastic strain
was plotted as a function of the number of load applications. This
plot was generated for the AC layer, the base/subbase layer, and the
subgrade. Similar plots were produced using the Belgium Center for
Road Research (CRR) model (9), and the two plots were compared.
Figure 7 shows that, initially, the CRR model predicts a larger defor-
mation rate in the AC layer than the new model, which catches up
after 12 million load applications. The slowing rate of rutting devel-
opment is expected. However, the data used in calibrating the model
produced a smaller hardening rate within the AC layer.
Figures 8 and 9 present a similar comparison between the two
models for the base/subbase and the subgrade layers, respectively.
Figure 8 shows that the new model predicts a larger plastic deforma-
tion in the base/subbase layer in the early age of the pavement. The
CRR model catches up after the first 12 million load applications.
Figure 9 shows that the subgrade deformation starts at a lower rate
than that of the CRR and catches up after 4 million load applications.
Ali et al. Paper No. 98-0260 165

FIGURE 5 Observed versus predicted rut depth (based on validation data set).

It should be noted that a perfect match between the two models
was not expected, given that the calibration methods were different.
The CRR model coefficients were derived on the basis of laboratory
testing under specific load, material, and environmental conditions
that may be different from those prevailing in the LTPP pavement
sections that were used to calibrate the model. For instance, the aver-
age AC layer elastic modulus used in the CRR model was 5000 MPa,
whereas the AC layer elastic modulus of GPS-1 sections varied from
500 to 13 000 MPa, with an average modulus of 6000 MPa. The fre-
quently used speed in the CRR laboratory testing was 27 Hz (corre-
sponding to 60 km/hr average speed), whereas the new model was
calibrated at the actual traffic speed.

FIGURE 6 Observed versus predicted rut development for Section 091047.

FIGURE 7 Comparison between new model and CRR model (AC layer).

FIGURE 8 Comparison between new model and CRR model (base/subbase layer).
Ali et al.
FIGURE 9 Comparison between new model and CRR model (subgrade layer).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of mechanistic-empirical analysis performed on data
from the LTPP program, the following are some of the important
conclusions:
• The large scatter in the results produced using the AI and the
Shell rutting models may indicate that these models do not accu-
rately estimate rutting. Hence, they need to be used cautiously, since
they are applicable only to pavement sections that do not exhibit
permanent deformation in any of the layers above the subgrade.
• A mechanistic model was developed to predict rut depth as a
function of the vertical compressive elastic strain in all pavement lay-
ers. The model was derived from a well-established plastic deforma-
tion functional form. To be compatible with mechanistic analysis, the
model form allows the characterization of traffic in terms of loading
groups rather than equivalent single axle loads. The proposed model
form was developed on basis of the assumption that the relationship
between the plastic and elastic strains is linear, for all pavement lay-
ers. It further assumes that this relationship is nonlinearly related to the
number of load applications. Two parameters are required to charac-
terize the permanent deformation behavior of each layer. These para-
meters were not available in the LTPP data base, nor enough data to
estimate the site-specific layer parameters. However, there were
enough data to calibrate the model for the entire data set (61 GPS-1
sections); the result was a set of rough estimates, or average values of
these parameters for the surface, base, and subgrade layers.
• The calibrated model is reasonably fit with the field data points,
with a standard error of estimate not much larger than the error asso-
Paper No. 98-0260 167
ciated with rut depth measurement. The model parameters indicate
that the AC layer contribution to surface rutting is marginal. The
combined base/subbase layer contributed the most to the measured
rutting. The contribution of the subgrade to the measured rutting was
greater than that of the AC layer, but less than that of the base layer.
• The model was validated using a different set of data obtained
at a different time. The results showed a reasonable agreement
between predicted and observed rut depths. Future enhancement to
the model may be realized by calibrating it to specific material types.
For instance, the parameters µ and α could be calibrated separately
for fine-grained subgrade and coarse-grained subgrade. Treated
bases also need a separate calibration. It is recommended that the
laboratory permanent deformation parameters be compared with
those that were derived on the basis of in situ performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study reported here was conducted as part of an FHWA con-
tract. Cheryl Richter served as the Contracting Officer’s Technical
Representative. Her support and feedback during the conduct of the
study are greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. Simpson, A. L., et al. Sensitivity Analysis for Selected Pavement Dis-
tresses. Report SHRP-P-393. National Highway Institute, Strategic High-
way Research Program, Washington, D.C., 1994.
168 Paper No. 98-0260
2. Ali, H. A., and S. D. Tayabji. Mechanistic Evaluation of Test Data from
LTPP Flexible Pavement Test Sections. FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, May 1997.
3. Research and Development of the Asphalt Institute’s Thickness Design
Manual (MS-1), 9th ed. Research Report 82-2. Asphalt Institute, Aug.
1982.
4. Shell Pavement Design Manual—Asphalt Pavements and Overlays for
Road Traffic. Shell International Petroleum Company, London, 1978.
5. Ullidtz, P. Pavement Analysis. Developments in Civil Engineering Series,
Vol. 19. Elsevier, 1987.
6. Huang, Y. H. Pavement Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, 1993.
7. Kenis, W. J. Predictive Design Procedures, A Design Method for Flexi-
ble Pavements Using the VESYS Structural Subsystem. Proc., 4th Inter-
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1629
national Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements,
1977.
8. Majidzadeh, K., et al. Implementation of a Pavement Design System.
Final Report, Research Project EES 579, Vols. 1 and 2. Ohio State Uni-
versity, Columbus, 1981.
9. Verstraeten, J., V. Veverka, and L. Francken. Rational and Practical
Designs of Asphalt Pavements to Avoid Cracking and Rutting. Proc., 5th
International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements,
Ann Arbor, Mich., 1982.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Flexible Pavement
Design.