Pavement Design Principles

Andrew Johnson, Ph.D., P.E.

State Pavement Design Engineer
Office of Materials and Research
Objectives
 Historical
perspective
 Basic asphalt design inputs
 Traffic
characterization
 Subgrade characterization
Objectives
 Design methodolgy
 AASHTO Design Equation
 Conversion to actual pavement design

 Sensitivity

 Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide

Objectives
 Distress identification
 Functional versus structural
 Nondestructive testing
 Falling Weight Deflectometer
What is the purpose of
pavement?
 Protect the subgrade from excessive
permanent deformation
 Resist loss of structural capacity from
fatigue produced by repeated traffic
loads
 Provide adequate serviceability to
users, without repair, for a given period
of time
What is the goal of pavement
design?
 Providethe most cost-effective structure
while optimizing the level of service
provided to road users.
Pavement Design History
Roman Roads
 Roman Empire built over 3000 miles of
roads in Britain alone by 200 A.D.
 These roads had ditches to aid in
drainage and their thickness varied over
weaker soils.
 This indicates that the Romans had
some understanding of basic soil
mechanics
First Asphalt Pavement
 Paris – 1854
 The material was natural rock asphalt,
i.e., limestone rock impregnated with
asphalt.
 The material provided a quiet, easily
cleaned surfacing, but the skid
resistance was very low in wet weather.
First Asphalt Pavement
 The first asphalt concrete specifications
appeared in the US in the 1890’s.
 Concurrently, coal tar/aggregate
mixtures were being used in Europe.
 The first hot-mix asphalt plants were
developed in the late 1920’s
Early Construction
 Firstmodern asphalt paver introduced
mid-1950’s
 Priorto 1950’s, asphalt was placed by
form-riding finishers similar to PCC
Pavement Design
 Two theoretical pavement types
 Rigid Pavement – Resists traffic loading by
resistance to bending. Concrete pavement
is primarily rigid.
Pavement Design
 Two theoretical pavement types
 Flexible Pavement – Resists traffic loading
through “internal friction”. An unpaved
road with a compacted crushed stone
course is a pure flexible pavement.
 Old-fashioned asphalt pavement (thin
asphalt layer over a granular base) is
mostly a flexible pavement.
Pavement Design
 Modern asphalt pavements are difficult
to analyze mathematically.
 Two key factors:
 Vertical compressive strain in subgrade
 Horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the

asphalt.
Pavement Design
 Modern asphalt pavements are difficult
to analyze mathematically.
Road Test Era, 1909-1961
 Bates Road Test (1922-23)
 In 1920, Illinois passed a $200 million bond
issue to build 9000 miles of paved roads.
 To determine the best paving material,
they built sections of brick, asphalt, and
concrete.
 Developed first thickness design
procedures and chose concrete for the
Illinois pavements.
 Old WWI Army trucks with 18,000 pound wheel
loads were used to load the pavement.
Road Test Era, 1909-1961
 AASHO Road Test
 Determine relationship between traffic and
performance
 Determine effect of loads on bridges
 Perform special studies (base types, paved
shoulders, tire pressures)
 Develop instrumentation, test procedures,
data, charts, graphs, and formulas for
future highway design
 AASHO Road Test Layout

N 23

Loop 3 Loop 6 Loop 5 Loop 4

Loop 2 Loop 1
71
OTTAWA
178
AASHO Road Test
 Started
Nov. 1958, Ended Nov. 1960
 Loops 3-6:
6 vehicles/lane
 10 vehicles/lane (Jan ‘60)
AASHO Road Test
 Operation
 18 hours, 40 minutes per day
 6 days/week

 1,114,000 Applications

 Avg. ESAL - 6.2 million

 Max ESAL - 10 million (Flex)

AASHTO Design Guides
 AASHO Road Test, 1958-1960
 AASHO Interim Guides, 1961 & 1962
 Revised Interim Guide, 1972
 Revised Chapter III (Rigid), 1981
 AASHTO Guide for the Design of
Pavement Structures, 1986
AASHTO Design Guides
 AASHTO Guide for the Design of
Pavement Structures (Overlays), 1993
 Supplement to the AASHTO Guide for
the Design of Pavement Structures
(Rigid Pavement Design), 1998
 Mechanistic-Empirical Guide for Design
of Pavement Structures (work in
progress), 2002
What does SCDOT use?
 1972 Interim Guide
 USC performed a study in the late 1980’s to
evaluate the 1986 Guide.
 SCDOT decided that resilient modulus was not
practical for routine analysis.
 Statistical reliability concepts led to designs that
contradicted previous practice.
 SCDOT does use a modified form of the 1993
Guide procedures for NDT of existing pavement.
Design Inputs
 Traffic
 How do we handle vehicles of different size
and weight?
 Fourth power relationship
 Double the weight on an axle, and the damage
increases by 2x2x2x2 = 16-fold.
Design Inputs
 Traffic
 How do we handle vehicles of different size
and weight?
 Equivalent Single Axle Loads
 Damage from various axle loads and configurations
are equated to the same damage from a single
18,000 pound axle.
 1 ESAL = 1 axle load of 18,000 pounds
 ESALs are different for concrete and asphalt
because each pavement type responds differently to
increasing loads
Design Inputs
 Traffic
 How do we handle vehicles of different size
and weight?
 SCHD Load Study (1966-1970)
 Looked at average ESALs per truck since not all
trucks are loaded to the maximum.
 Load study has been updated using weigh-in-motion
data over the years, but the changes have not been
major.
Design Inputs
 Traffic
 How do we handle vehicles of different size
and weight?
 Road Groups
 Represent typical truck load combinations for
different conditions.
 See page 5 of Pavement Design Guidelines
 Road Group F = 0.3774 ESALs per truck
 Road Group O = 0.9027 ESALs per truck
 Fully loaded five-axle tractor-trailer = 2.37 ESALs
Design Inputs
 Subgrade Characterization
 AASHO Road Test - Ottawa, IL
 Subgrade: silty-clay (A-6), CBR = 2-4
 Soil Support Value
 Triaxial
 R-value
 CBR
 Resilient Modulus
 Classification
Design Inputs
 Subgrade Characterization
 Practical considerations
 Soil may vary considerably within a project
 Borrow from outside the project limits can vary
 Project size increases variability
 Undercut remains subjective
Design Inputs
 Subgrade Characterization
 SCDOT method
 Take borings at 500 foot intervals
 Visually classify each layer
 Perform AASHTO Soil Classification on each layer in
each boring
 Determine the predominant soil classifications
 Assign a SSV to each layer based on previous tests
 Perform several CBR tests (typically one per centerline
mile) to verify the previous work
 Determine SSV based on value exceeded by 85% of soil
 Make adjustments based on potential variability
 Assign SSV for entire project
Design Inputs
 Subgrade Characterization
 Problems for non-SCDOT designers
 Historical soil information not available.
 SCDOT hesitant to release information for liability
reasons.
 Do not use SSV relationships from other states with
SCDOT inputs.
 Strongly recommend using AASHTO soil classification.
 May want to increase CBR testing to two per mile.
 Can call Mike Lockman at 737-6692 to check the
reasonableness of SSV figures.
 Bottom line – engineering judgment is critical.
Design Inputs
 Serviceability
 What constitutes failure?
 AASHTO used road users to define Present
Serviceability Index (PSI)
 0 = impassable
 5 = total perfection
 4.2 = typical new road
 Found PSI correlates to roughness
Design Inputs
 Serviceability
 What does SCDOT use for design PSI?
 2.5 for interstate and limited access
 2.0 for all others
 AASHTO 1972 Design
Equation – Page 6

 4.2  Pt 
log 
 4 . 2  1 . 5   log 1   0.372( SSV  3.0)
log( ESAL)  9.36 log( SN  1)  0.2   
1094 R
0.4 
SN  1 5.19

ESAL = Equivalent Single Axle Load

SN = Structural Number
Pt = Terminal Serviceability
R = Regional Factor
SSV = Soil Support Value
Structural Number (SN)
 How to equate pavements made of
different materials?
 Coefficient of Relative Strength (a)
 Have no direct physical meaning
 Derived from statistical correlation

 Structural Number = a x thickness

 Two pavements with equivalent SN
theoretically have the same load-carrying
capability
Coefficients of Relative Strength – Page 10
 Hot Laid AC Surface – 0.44
 Hot Laid AC Binder – 0.44
 First 400 psy only, a=0.34 beyond 400 psy
 Sand-Clay Base – 0.12 to 0.20
 Coquina Base – 0.12
 Graded Aggregate Base – 0.18
 Hot Laid Asphalt Aggregate Base – 0.34
 Cement Stabilized Aggregate Base – 0.34
 Old PCC Pavement – 0.40
 Earth-Type Subbase – 0.08
 Cement Modified Subbase – 0.15
Derivation of Coefficients
 Dr. Busching at Clemson University did
research project to determine these
coefficients in the late 1960’s.
 Had AASHO Road Test material shipped to
Clemson.
 Built many test pavements with both AASHO
and SC material.
 Compared deflections of AASHO pavements
with SC pavements
 Assumed equal deflections = equal SN
Example SN calculation
200 psy Surface 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.44 = 0.84
200 psy Binder 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.44 = 0.84
8 inches GAB 8.00” * 0.18 = _____
1.44
Assume 105 psy/inch SN= 3.12
Pavement Design Example
 Traffic= 15,000 ADT for 10 years
 Future travel lanes = 4
 Percent trucks = 5
 Industrial area, Road Group M
 Soil Support Value = 2.0
 Not limited access, PT = 2.0
What is the recommended pavement?
Pavement Design Example
 Step 1 – Convert traffic to ESALs
 15,000 ADT 2-way = 7500 ADT 1-way
 For 4-lanes, critical lane factor = 0.8

 Critical Lane ADT = 0.8 * 7500 = 6000

 Critical Lane Trucks = 6000 * 5% = 300

 Road Group M = .7713 ESALs/truck

 Daily ESALs = 300 * .7713 = 231.4

 Design ESALs = 231.4 * 365 * 10 = 844,610

Use nomograph to calculate SN (PT = 2.0)

4.13
Use nomograph to calculate SN (PT= 2.5)

4.40
Design Pavement of SN=4.13
 From our previous example:
200 psy Surface 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.44 = 0.84
200 psy Binder 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.44 = 0.84
8 inches GAB 8.00” * 0.18 = _____
1.44
Assume 105 psy/inch SN= 3.12

3.12 – 4.13 = -1.01 = SN deficit

 Design Pavement of SN=4.13
 To complete design with AAB,
 1.01 / 0.34 = 2.97 inches * 105 psy/in = 312 psy
 Use 350 psy

200 psy Surface 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.44 = 0.84

200 psy Binder 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.44 = 0.84
350 psy AAB 350/105 = 3.33” * 0.34 = 1.13
8 inches GAB 8.00” * 0.18 =_____
1.44
SN= 4.25
 Design can be abused…

Bituminous Surfacing 0.50” * 0.35 = 0.18

(Triple)
5 Feet Earth Type 60.00”* 0.08 =_____
4.80
Subbase
SN= 4.98
 Design Sensitivity
 What happens if the thickness is below the
requirement?
 Suppose that a typo causes 300 psy AAB to be
specified instead of 350 psy.

200 psy Surface 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.44 = 0.84

200 psy Binder 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.44 = 0.84
300 psy AAB 300/105 = 2.86” * 0.34 = 0.97
8 inches GAB 8.00” * 0.18 =_____
1.44
SN= 4.09
Use AASHTO nomograph to recalculate SN

4.25 = 1,048,000 ESALs

4.13 = 856,000 ESALs
4.09 = 799,000 ESALs
Design Sensitivity
 What happens if the thickness is below the
requirement?
 Suppose that a typo causes 350 psy AAB to be
specified instead of 450 psy.

799,000/856,000 = 93% of design ESALs

799,000/1,048,000 = 76% of specified ESALs
Design Reliability
 When does a 10-year pavement design
fail?
 Target is 90% reliability (only 1 in 10
designs last 10 years or less)
 Average life is closer to 13-15 years
 Variables
 Traffic
 Material

 Construction Practice

 Subgrade

 Climate
Practical Considerations
 Current specifications require granular
base courses to placed in no more than
8 inch lifts. Will be increased to 10
inches soon.
 Total granular base thickness should
not exceed 12 inches.
 Cement Modified Subbase should be
either 6” or 8” thick.
Practical Considerations
 For surface courses, thickness range is
150 to 200 psy. Should only use one
course of surface.
 For intermediate (binder) courses,
thickness range is 200 to 300 psy.
 For Asphalt Aggregate Base courses,
thickness range is 300 to 450 psy.
Practical Considerations
 For construction traffic, the
perpendicular drop-off between lanes
must not exceed 1”. With a slope, the
drop-off must not exceed 2”.
 Costs can vary depending on the
project setting.
 Designs with the minimum number of
operations may be cheaper in urban
settings.
 Rehabilitation

“You can observe a lot by watching”

-Yogi Berra
Distress Identification
 Todescribe pavement distress, three
pieces of information are required
 Distress type
 Severity level

 Extent
Distress Identification
 Pavement distress falls into two broad
categories
 Functional distress – Distress that causes a loss of
serviceability but does not affect the structural
capacity of the pavement
 Examples:
 Rutting
 Block cracking
 Faulting
 Skid resistance
Distress Identification
 Pavement distress falls into two broad
categories
 Structural distress – Distress that is caused
by the loss of the structural capacity of the
pavement structure
 Examples:
 Fatigue/Alligator Cracking
Distress Identification
 Manual of Distress Identification was
developed for SHRP LTPP. Is available
online at:

www.tfhrc.gov/pavement/ltpp/reports/03031/
Common Distresses
Fatigue Cracking
 Generally a sign of insufficient
pavement strength for the traffic and
subgrade conditions.
 Often associated with localized poor
drainage.
 In the terminal condition, will start to rut
and deform the subgrade.
Fatigue cracking
Fatigue cracking

Low Severity Fatigue Cracking

Fatigue cracking

Moderate Severity Fatigue Cracking

Fatigue cracking

High Severity Fatigue Cracking

Block cracking
 Generally an age-related functional
distress.
 Is a “top-down” process.
 Does not indicate deeper pavement
problems.
 Prefer to mill the existing pavement
prior to overlay to prevent the cracks
from reflecting.
Block cracking
 Can be distinguished from fatigue
cracking by the shape of the crack
pattern.
 Often occurs along with fatigue
cracking.
Block cracking
Block cracking
Longitudinal cracking
 Can be a function of using a stiff asphalt
mixture.
 Hard to distinguish from low-severity
fatigue cracking.
 In non-fatigue situations, is typically a
top-down type of crack. These cracks
appear on either side of the wheelpath.
Longitudinal cracking
Longitudinal cracking

Wheelpath longitudinal crack

Reflection cracking at PCC
Joints
 Most pre-1950’s primary routes were
paved with PCC.
 Many urban streets were also PCC.
 Some degree of reflection cracking is
difficult to inhibit.
 If the pavement is not pumping, may not
be a serious concern.
Reflection cracking at PCC
Joints
Reflection cracking at PCC
Joints

High severity reflection cracking

Rutting
 Two types of rutting
 Deep rutting – Results from permanent
deformation of the subgrade due to
excessive stress. This type of rutting is a
structural distress.
 Shallow rutting – Due to lack of stability in
the asphalt layers. This type of rutting is a
functional distress.
Rutting
Raveling
 Lossof aggregate from the surface.
 Can be caused by a “dry” mix.
Raveling
Overlay Design
Overlay Analysis
 Assume that the pavement loses
structural capacity as it is exposed to
traffic and weather.
 At a given point in time, the pavement
has a SN that is less than when it was
new.
 Two methods for determining in situ SN.
Overlay Analysis
 Nondestructive testing
 Falling Weight Deflectometer
Overlay Analysis
 Nondestructive testing
 Falling Weight Deflectometer
Overlay Analysis
 Coefficient Depreciation
 Assume that the original structural
coefficients are reduced.
 Surface and Binder – 60% (0.26 vs. 0.44)
 Base – 70%

 Subbase – 80%

 Depthof depreciation dependent on

pavement condition.
 Overlay Design
 Coefficient Depreciation Example
 Use the previous example pavement:

200 psy Surface 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.44 = 0.84

200 psy Binder 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.44 = 0.84
450 psy AAB 350/105 = 3.33” * 0.34 = 1.13
8 inches GAB 8.00” * 0.18 =_____
1.44
SN= 4.25
Overlay Design
 Coefficient Depreciation Example
 Visual inspection indicates the pavement
has:
 Widespread low severity raveling
 Widespread low severity fatigue cracking

 Isolated high severity fatigue cracking

 No rutting
Overlay Design
 Coefficient Depreciation Example
 Pavement design indicates a 5.0 SN is
necessary for the next 10-year period.
Overlay Design
 Coefficient Depreciation Example
 Cracking probably extends fully through
the asphalt.
 Assume the surface/binder/AAB are
depreciated.
 No rutting, so assume GAB is intact.
 No depreciation on base.
 Overlay Design
 Coefficient Depreciation Example

200 psy Surface 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.26 = 0.49

200 psy Binder 200/105 = 1.90” * 0.26 = 0.49
350 psy AAB 350/105 = 3.33” * 0.21 = 0.70
8 inches GAB 8.00” * 0.18 =_____
1.44
SN= 3.12
Overlay Design
 Coefficient Depreciation Example
 3.12 - 5.0 = -1.88
 Mill 2” to remove raveled material and
replace 1.9 inches of 0.26 material with
0.34 material
 (0.34 - 0.26) * 1.9” = 0.15
 SN = 3.12 + 0.15 – 5.0 = -1.73
 Overlay with 200 psy surface and 200 psy
binder = (400 psy/105 * 0.44) = 1.68