Pavement Design

Guest Lecturer
Dr. Sirous Alavi, P.E.
SIERRA TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC.
1005 Terminal Way, Suite 125
Reno, Nevada 89502

Topics

Introduction
Design Factors
Pavement Types
Fundamentals of Pavement Design
AASHTO
Asphalt Institute

Types of Design
FUNDEMENTALS

State-of-Practice State-of-the-Art

Mechanistic-
Empirical Mechanistic
Empirical

1
 Mechanistic-Empirical
(M-E) Design
Primary advantage is the consideration of
FUNDEMENTALS

the state of stress

HMA
Base

Subbase

Subgrade Soil

Mechanistic-Empirical
(M-E) Design
Establishes connection between distress
FUNDEMENTALS

and distress mechanism

Mechanistic-Empirical
(M-E) Design
Accounts for new materials, traffic loads,
FUNDEMENTALS

and construction procedures
All design features affecting pavement
performance considered
Relies more on fundamental engineering
mechanics
Primary focus on pavement performance

2
 Mechanistic-Empirical
(M-E) Design
1993 AASHTO Guide
FUNDEMENTALS

Design Variables
Time
Traffic
Reliability
Environment
Serviceability
Structural Number

Mechanistic-Empirical
(M-E) Design
FUNDEMENTALS

AASHTO Design

Time Constraints
FUNDEMENTALS

Performance Period
Refers to the time that an initial pavement
structure will last before rehab
Analysis Period
Refersto the period of time that any
design strategy must cover

3
 AASHTO Design

Traffic
FUNDEMENTALS

Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL)

Converts wheel loads of various
magnitudes and repetitions to an
equivalent number of "standard" or
"equivalent" loads based on the amount
of damage they do to the pavement

AASHTO Design

Equivalent Axle Load Factor (EALF)

FUNDEMENTALS

Damage per pass to a pavement by the axle

in question relative to the damage per pass
of a standard axle load
Depends of type of pavements, thickness or
structural capacity and terminal conditions

EALF Table for Flexible Pavement,

Single Axle & pt of 2.5
Pavement Structural Number (SN)
FUNDEMENTALS

Axle
Load 1 2 3 4 5 6
(kips)
2 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002
4 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.002
6 0.011 0.017 0.017 0.013 0.010 0.009
8 0.032 0.047 0.051 0.041 0.034 0.031
10 0.078 0.102 0.118 0.102 0.088 0.080
12 0.168 0.198 0.229 0.213 0.189 0.176
14 0.328 0.358 0.399 0.388 0.360 0.342
16 0.591 0.613 0.646 0.645 0.623 0.606

4
 AASHTO Design

m = number of axle
FUNDEMENTALS

load groups
m Fi = the EALF for the
ESAL = Fi ni ith axle load group
i =1 ni = number of
passes of the ith axle
load group

200X AASHTO Design Guide

No more ESALs
FUNDEMENTALS

Traffic input
Vehicle type (number of axles)
Axle weight
Quantity and quality of raw traffic data
similar to that used to compute ESALS
Consistent with FHWA Traffic Monitoring
Guide

Traffic Hierarchical Input Levels

FUNDEMENTALS

Input Knowledge of
Input Values
Level Parameters

1 Site specific WIM & AVC Good

Regional Default WIM &
2 Modest
AVC, Vehicle Counts
National Default WIM &
3 Poor
AVC, Vehicle Counts

5
 200X AASHTO Design Guide
Load Spectra
Axle weight frequencies for each
common axle combination (e.g.
single axle, tandem axle, tridem
FUNDEMENTALS

axle, quad axle).

800

700

600
Number of Axles

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000 70000 75000 80000
Axle Load (lbs)

AASHTO Design

Reliability - Incorporating some degree of certainty

FUNDEMENTALS

into the design process to ensure that various design

alternatives will last the Analysis Period

Recommended Level of Reliability

Functional
Urban Rural
Classificaiton

Interstate 85 - 99.9 80 - 99.9

Arterials 80 - 99 75 - 95
Collectors 80 - 95 75 - 95
Local 50 - 80 50 - 80

AASHTO Design
Environmental
FUNDEMENTALS

Temperature
Stresses induced by thermal action
Changes in creep properties

Effect of freezing and thawing of subgrade

Rainfall
Penetration of surface water into underlying
materials

6
 AASHTO Design

Serviceability
FUNDEMENTALS

Initial serviceability index is function of

pavement type and construction quality
Terminal serviceability index is lowest
index that will be tolerated before
rehab, resurfacing, or reconstruction

SURFACE (AC)
AASHTO Design BASE
SUBBASE (OPTIONAL)
SUBGRADE
Structural Number
FUNDEMENTALS

mi = drainage coefficient for layer i

a1, a2, a3 = layer coefficient representative of
surface, base, and subbase course, respectively
D1, D2, D3 = thickness representative of surface,
base, and subbase course, respectively

SN = a1D1 + a2 D2 m2 + a3 D3 m3

AASHTO Design Example

Ridgeview Dr. Rehabilitation

FUNDEMENTALS

20-year flexible pavement analysis

period
Low volume road with limited growth
potential

7
 NAM
ED

PLU
RID

M
AS
GE
VIE
VIEW

PL
UM
R IDGE

POINT

AS
FUNDEMENTALS

COPPER

COPPER
C OPP
ER PO COPPER POINT
INT

GREEN RANCH
RID
GE

NCH
V
UN

IE
W
NA

GREEN RA
ME

RIDGEVIEW
D

HTS
ADO W HEIG
WINDY M

EE
MOU

CR
N TA IN VIS
TA

NS

AASHTO Design Example

Traffic
FUNDEMENTALS

72-hour vehicle counts were conducted

directionally at three locations within the
project boundaries using machine traffic
counters
Manual classification counts were conducted
at the machine count locations to calibrate
the machine count data and categorize into
the FHWA 13 vehicle classification scheme
Vehicle Classification

8
 Adjusted Traffic Volumes and Vehicle Classification Year 2005 Through 2010
Road Segment: Ridgeview Drive @ Plumas Street
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 9 Total
EB % 43.64 54.11 0.35 1.60 0.15 0.15 100
Volume 1132.30 1404.00 9.10 41.60 3.90 3.90 2594.8
WB % 43.29 54.11 0.70 1.60 0.15 0.15 100
Volume 1123.20 1404.00 18.20 41.60 3.90 3.90 2594.8
5189.6 Total ADT

Road Segment: Ridgeview Drive @ Mountain Vista Way

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 9 Total
FUNDEMENTALS

EB % 43.44 54.11 0.45 1.60 0.20 0.20 100

Volume 823.65 1026.00 8.55 30.40 3.80 3.80 1896.2
WB % 42.94 54.11 0.95 1.60 0.20 0.20 100
Volume 814.15 1026.00 18.05 30.40 3.80 3.80 1896.2
3792.4 Total ADT

Adjusted Traffic Volumes and Vehicle Classification Year 2011 Through 2025
Road Segment: Ridgeview Drive @ Plumas Street
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 9 Total
EB % 43.94 54.11 0.35 1.60 0.00 0.00 100
Volume 1140.10 1404.00 9.10 41.60 2594.8
WB % 43.59 54.11 0.70 1.60 0.00 0.00 100
Volume 1131.00 1404.00 18.20 41.60 2594.8
5189.6 Total ADT

Road Segment: Ridgeview Drive @ Mountain Vista Way

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 9 Total
EB % 43.84 54.11 0.45 1.60 0.00 0.00 100
Volume 831.25 1026.00 8.55 30.40 1896.2
WB % 43.34 54.11 0.95 1.60 0.00 0.00 100
Volume 821.75 1026.00 18.05 30.40 1896.2
3792.4 Total ADT

AASHTO Design Example

Compute ESALs using EALFs from

FUNDEMENTALS

AASHTO Tables in Appendix D
Assumptions
Typical axle weights for each vehicle class
SN of 3.0
pt of 2.5

WB Daily ESALs WB Yearly ESALs Cumulative ESALs

Plumas Mountain Vista Plumas Mountain Vista Plumas Mountain Vista

2005 0 90 81 33,031 29,487 33,031 29,487
2006 1 90 81 33,031 29,487 66,062 58,973
2007 2 90 81 33,031 29,487 99,093 88,460
2008 3 90 81 33,031 29,487 132,124 117,947
2009 4 90 81 33,031 29,487 165,155 147,433
2010 5 90 81 33,031 29,487 198,187 176,920
2011 6 75 66 27,362 23,963 225,548 200,882
2012 7 75 66 27,362 23,963 252,910 224,845
2013 8 75 66 27,362 23,963 280,271 248,807
2014 9 75 66 27,362 23,963 307,633 272,770
2015 10 75 66 27,362 23,963 334,994 296,732
2016 11 75 66 27,362 23,963 362,356 320,695
2017 12 75 66 27,362 23,963 389,717 344,657
2018 13 75 66 27,362 23,963 417,079 368,620
2019 14 75 66 27,362 23,963 444,441 392,582
2020 15 75 66 27,362 23,963 471,802 416,545
2021 16 75 66 27,362 23,963 499,164 440,507
2022 17 75 66 27,362 23,963 526,525 464,470
2023 18 75 66 27,362 23,963 553,887 488,432
2024 19 75 66 27,362 23,963 581,248 512,395
2025 20 75 66 27,362 23,963 608,610 536,357

9
 AASHTO Design Example

Materials
FUNDEMENTALS

R-value data was collected at five sample
locations (8, 7, 10, 20, 8)
Resilient Modulus (MR) relationship

R-value 20 MR = 1000 + 555 x R-value (psi)

Parameter Average

Design Life, years 20

Traffic (ESALs), W18 610,000
Reliability, R (%) 80%
Standard Deviation (New Construction), So 0.45
Subgrade R-value 10.60
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR (ksi) 6.9
Initial Serviceability, P0 4.2
Terminal Serviceability, Pt 2.5
Modulus of Elasticity for New AC (ksi) 350
Layer Coefficient for New Plant Mix Surface (AC), a1 0.39
Layer Coefficient for Gravel Base, a2 0.14
Layer Coefficient for Subbase (Borrow), a3 0.08
Drainage Coefficient for AC layer, m1 1.0
Drainage Coefficient for Base layer, m2 1.1
Drainage Coefficient for SB layer, m3 1.1

SN 3.1

10
 SURFACE (AC)
AASHTO Design BASE
SUBGRADE

Assume D values for surface and base

FUNDEMENTALS

Asphalt is 4 inches
Base is 10 inches
Calculate SN - Is it acceptable?

SN = a1D1 + a2 D2 m2
SN = 0.39 4.0 in + 0.14 10 in 1.1
SN = 3.1

Topics

Introduction
Design Factors
Pavement Types
Fundamentals of Pavement Design
AASHTO
Asphalt Institute

Asphalt Institute (AI)

Design
Determine minimum thickness of asphalt
FUNDEMENTALS

layer that will adequately withstand the

stresses that develop for two strain
criteria
Vertical compressive strain at surface of
subgrade
Horizontal tensile strain at bottom of asphalt
layer

11
 Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design
Wheel
FUNDEMENTALS

load

P0
P1

P1
SUBGRADE
General form of
stress reduction
Stress distribution
within different
layers of the
pavement structure

Asphalt Institute (AI)

Design
Wheel
FUNDEMENTALS

load

SUBGRADE

Tension
Compression

20%
Asphalt Institute (AI) Fatigue

Design
Design Criteria
FUNDEMENTALS

Fatigue
Nf = allowable number of load repetitions
|E*|= dynamic modulus
t = horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the
asphalt layer
Assumes asphalt volume of 11% and air void
volume of 5%

Nf = 0.0796(t)-3.291 |E*|-0.854

12
 Asphalt Institute (AI) 0.5
inch
Design
Design Criteria
FUNDEMENTALS

Permanent Deformation
Nd = allowable number of load repetitions
c = vertical compressive strain on the surface
of the subgrade

Nd = 1.365 x 10-9 (c)-4.477

Asphalt Institute (AI)

Design
Five main steps
FUNDEMENTALS

1. Select or determine input data
2. Select surface and base materials
3. Determine minimum thickness required
4. Evaluate feasibility of staged construction
and prepare plan, if necessary
5. Carry out economic analyses
NAM
ED

PLU
RID

M
AS
GE
VIE
VIEW

PL
UM
R IDGE

POINT

AS
FUNDEMENTALS

COPPER
COPPER

C OPP
ER PO COPPER POINT
INT

GREEN RANCH
RID
GE

NCH
V
UN

IE
W
NA

GREEN RA
ME

RIDGEVIEW
D

HTS
ADO W HEIG
WINDY M

EE

MOU
CR

N TA IN VIS
TA
NS

13
 Asphalt Institute (AI) Design
Example Gross
Axle Single Tandem Tridem
Select or Load Axles Axles Axles
FUNDEMENTALS

(kips)
determine input 1 0.00002
data 2 0.00018
Traffic 4 0.00209 0.0003
Characteristics 6 0.01043 0.001 0.00030
8 0.0343 0.003 0.001
ESALs similar to 10 0.0877 0.007 0.002
AASHTO 12 0.189 0.014 0.003
14 0.360 0.027 0.006
16 0.623 0.047 0.011

WB Daily ESALs WB Yearly ESALs Cumulative ESALs

Plumas 2 Plumas 2 Plumas 2

2005 0 118 43,110 43,110
2006 1 118 43,110 86,221
2007 2 118 43,110 129,331
2008 3 118 43,110 172,441
2009 4 118 43,110 215,552
2010 5 118 43,110 258,662
2011 6 72 26,197 284,859
2012 7 72 26,197 311,057
2013 8 72 26,197 337,254
2014 9 72 26,197 363,451
2015 10 72 26,197 389,649
2016 11 72 26,197 415,846
2017 12 72 26,197 442,043
2018 13 72 26,197 468,241
2019 14 72 26,197 494,438
2020 15 72 26,197 520,635
2021 16 72 26,197 546,833
2022 17 72 26,197 573,030
2023 18 72 26,197 599,227
2024 19 72 26,197 625,425
2025 20 72 26,197 651,622

Asphalt Institute (AI)

Design Example
Select or determine input data
FUNDEMENTALS

R-value data was collected at five sample

locations (8, 7, 10, 20, 8)
Resilient Modulus (MR) relationship

MR = 1155 + 555 x R-value (psi)

14
 Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design Example
Select surface and base materials
FUNDEMENTALS

Asphalt concrete surface or emulsified

asphalt surface
Asphalt concrete base, emulsified
asphalt base, or untreated aggregate
base

Asphalt Institute (AI)

Design Example
Determine minimum thickness required
FUNDEMENTALS

Obtained by computer program
Entering the appropriate table or chart
Assume 10 inch untreated aggregate base
Subgrade MR of 7 psi
Design ESAL of 655,000

6.5 inch

15
 Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design Example
Evaluate feasibility of staged
FUNDEMENTALS

construction and prepare plan, if

necessary
Used when adequate funds are not
available to construct the pavement to
the required depth

Asphalt Institute (AI)

Design Example
Carry out economic analyses
FUNDEMENTALS

Evaluate alternative designs based on

the type of pavement, type of materials
used, whether or not staged
construction is used, etc.

Questions
FUNDEMENTALS

16