Version Version

2012.05.31
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction……………………………………..................................................................... 3

2. 1993 AASHTO Guide Flexible Pavement Equation……………………………………...... 4

3. Design of Flexible Pavements With Maccaferri Geogrids……………………………….. 6

3.1 AASHTO Design Method …………………………………………………………………. 6

3.2 Design Requirements……………………………………………………………………... 7

3.2.1 Design Variables…………………………………………………………………….. 7

3.2.2 Performance Criteria………………………………………………………………... 11

3.3 Modified AASHTO Method With Maccaferri MacGrid Series………………………. 21

3.3.1 Design With Subbase………………………………………………………………. 22

4. References……………………………………………………………………………………….. 23

2
1. Introduction
This document describes the design of flexible pavements, in accordance with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. This design method is an empirical method.

Flexible pavements consist of a prepared subgrade layer which is the roadbed soil compacted to a specified density. A subbase
course is constructed on top of the prepared roadbed, and may be omitted if the subgrade soil is of a high quality. The base
course is constructed on the subbase course, or if no subbase is used, directly on the roadbed soil. It usually consists of
aggregates such as crushed stone, or crushed gravel and sand. On top of the base course is the surface course that typically
consists of a mixture of mineral aggregates and bituminous materials.

2. 1993 AASHTO Guide Flexible Pavement Equation

An empirical approach is one which is based on the results of experiments or experience. Many pavement design procedures
use an empirical approach. This means that the relationship between design inputs (e.g., loads, materials, layer configurations
and environment) and pavement failure were arrived at through experience, experimentation or a combination of both. The
empirical equations used in the 1993 AASHTO Guide are largely a result of the original AASHO Road Test.

This equation is widely used and has the following form:

⎛ ΔPSI ⎞
log 10 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 4 .2 − 1 .5 ⎠
log 10 (W18 ) = Z R × S o + 9.36 × log 10 (SN + 1) − 0.20 + + 2.32 × log 10 (M R ) − 8.07 (1)
1094
0.40 +
(SN + 1)5.19

where: W18 = predicted number of 80 kN (18 kips) ESALs

ZR = standard normal deviate (example: ZR = -1.645 for 95 % reliability)

So = combined standard error of the traffic prediction and performance prediction

SN = Structural Number (an index that is indicative of the total pavement thickness required)
[inches]

= a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3+...

ai = ith layer coefficient

Di = ith layer thickness (inches)

mi = ith layer drainage coefficient

ΔPSI = difference between the initial design serviceability index, po, and the design terminal
serviceability index, pt

MR = subgrade resilient modulus (in psi)

3
Inputs
The 1993 AASHTO Guide equation (1) requires a number of inputs related to loads, pavement structure and subgrade support.
These inputs are:

Predicted loading W18

The predicted loading is simply the predicted number of 80 kN (18,000 lb.) ESALs that the pavement will experience over its
design lifetime, which can be calculated as described in Appendix A.

The Asphalt Institute Traffic Classifications (after Asphalt Institute, 1983) suggests the first approximation values reported in
Table 1.

Table 1 - Asphalt Institute Traffic Classifications (after Asphalt Institute, 1983)

Type of Street or Highway Estimated 18,000 lb (80 kN) ESALs

Parking lots, light traffic residential streets and farm roads 5,000
Residential streets, rural farm and residential roads 10,000
Urban and rural minor collectors 100,000
Urban minor arterials, light industrial streets, rural major collectors and rural minor
1,000,000
arterial highways
Urban/rural freeways and other principal arterial highways 3,000,000
Some interstate highways and industrial roads 10,000,000

Reliability
The reliability of the pavement design-performance process is the probability that a pavement section designed using the
process will perform satisfactorily over the traffic and environmental conditions for the design period (AASHTO, 1993). In other
words, there must be some assurance that a pavement will perform as intended given variability in such things as construction,
environment and materials. The ZR and So variables account for reliability:

ZR
The standard normal deviate. The standard normal table value corresponding to a desired probability of exceedance level,
commonly termed reliability in pavement design. The reliability of the design-performance process is the probability that a
pavement section designed using the process will perform satisfactorily over the traffic and environmental conditions for the
design nod. For example, a designer may specify that there should only be a 5% chance that the design does not last a
specified number of years (e.g., 20 years). This is the same as stating that there should be a 95 % chance that the design does
last the specified number of years (e.g. 20 years): in this case the reliability would be 95 % (100 % - 5 %) and the
corresponding ZR value is -1.645. In other words, given a Gaussian standard normal probability distribution, ZR = -1,645 is the
value on the X-axis corresponding to 95 % of the area under the curve. Typical reliability values are between 50 and 99.9 %,
which correspond to ZR value between 0 and -3.09

S0
combined standard error of the traffic prediction and performance prediction. This variable defines how widely the two basic
design inputs, traffic and performance, can vary. For instance, traffic may be estimated at 2,000,000 ESALS over 20 years,
Howewer, actual traffic may turn out to be 2,500,000 ESALs over 20 years due to unanticipated population growth. Similarly,
pavement design factors may turn out to be different than estimated. The more these values are likely to vary, the higher S0
should be. Typical values of S0 are about 0.40 to 0.50 for flexible pavement. S0 cannot be directly calculated from actual traffic
numbers or estimates of structural design values.

Pavement structure: The pavement structure is characterized by the Structural Number

SN
it is an abstract number expressing the structural strength of a pavement required for given combinations of soil support
(MR), total traffic expressed in ESALs, terminal serviceability and environment. The Structural Number is converted to actual
layer thicknesses (D) using a layer coefficient (a) that represents the relative strength of the construction materials in that
layer. Additionally, all layers below the HMA layer are assigned a drainage coefficient (m) that represents the relative loss of

4
strength in a layer due to its drainage characteristics and the total time it is exposed to near saturation moisture conditions.
Typical values of SN can be between 1 and 7 inches (25.4 – 177.8 mm).
Typical layer coefficients are:

HMA = 0.44
Crushed aggregate = 0,14
Engineered fill = 0.10

Generally quick-draining layers that almost never become saturated can have drainage coefficients as high as 1.4, while slow-
draining layers that are often saturated can have drainage coefficients as low as 0, 40. A drainage coefficient is basically a way
of making a specific layer thicker. If a fundamental drainage problem is suspected, thicker layers may only be of marginal
benefit - a better solution is to address the actual drainage problem by using very dense layers (to minimize water infiltration)
or designing a drainage system. Because of the risk associated with its use, often the drainage coefficient is neglected (i.e., set
as m = 1.0).

Serviceable life
The difference in present serviceability index (PSI) between construction and end-of-life is the serviceability life. It is
represented by:

ΔPSI
The difference in PSI between construction (p0) and end-of-life (pt). The equation compares this to default values used
by the AASHO road test of 4.2 for the immediately-after-construction value (p0) and 1.5 for end-of-life (pt).
Typical post-construction serviceability p0: 4.0 - 5.0 depending upon construction quality, smoothness, etc.
Typical end-of life or "terminal serviceability” pt : 1.5 – 3.0 depending upon road use (e.g., interstate highway, urban
arterial, residential)

Subgrade support
It is represented by:

MR
Subgrade resilient modulus (psi). Intuitively, the amount of structural support offered by the subgrade.
Typical values of MR, depending upon subgrade composition, moisture, time or year, etc., can be between about 3,000
and 30,000 psi (430 – 4.300 kPa).

5
Outputs
The 1993 AASHTO Guide equation can be solved for any one of the variables as long as all the others are supplied. Typically,
the output is either total ESALs or the required Structural Number (or the associated pavement layer depths). To be most
accurate, the flexible pavement equation described in this chapter should be solved simultaneously with the flexible pavement
EALF.

This solution method is an iterative process that solves for ESALs in both equations by varying the Structural Number. It is
iterative because the Structural Number (SN) has two key influences:
- The Structural Number determines the total number of ESALs that a particular pavement can support.
- The Structural Number also determines what the 80 kN (18,000 lb.) ESAL is for a given load.

In practice, the flexible pavement design is usually solved independently of the ESAL equation by using an ESAL value that is
assumed independent of structural number. Although this assumption is not true, pavement structure depths calculated using
it are reasonably accurate. This design process usually proceeds as follows:
- Assume a structural number (SN) for EALF calculations, usually SN = 5.0.
- Determine the EALF for each load type by solving the EALF equation using the assumed SN for each load type, or use
Tables A.3, A.4, A.5. Typically, a standard set of load types is used, as shown in Table A.7.
- Estimate the traffic count for each load type for the entire design life of the pavement to obtain the total number of
ESALs expected over the design life of the pavement, using the calculation scheme in Table A.7.
- Determine and gather flexible pavement design inputs (ZR, So, ΔPSI and MR).
- Solve the design equation (1) for SN.
- Check to see that the computed SN value is reasonably close to that assumed for EALF calculations. Otherwise repeat
iteratively the process with this value of SN.

Tables 2 and 3, by Washington State Department of Transport, helps to select the thicknesses of the various layers.

A quick, first approximation calculation of the total traffic W18 and the Structural Number SN (cm) can be carried out using the
chart in Figure 1.

3. Design of Flexible Pavements With Maccaferri Geogrids

The approach to flexible pavement design is similar for reinforced and unreinforced pavements and can be divided into two
steps:
1. The structural number SN of the pavement is determined. This is independent of the reinforcement.
2. The depth of the pavement materials can be determined.

3.1 AASHTO Design Method

The basic design equation for flexible pavements in the AASHTO 93 design guide is Eq. (1).

The AASHTO method utilizes the term Structural Number (SN) to quantify the structural strength of a pavement required for a
given combination of soil support, total traffic, reliability, and serviceability level. The required SN is converted to actual
thickness of surfacing, base and subbase, by means of appropriate layer coefficients representing the relative strength of the
construction materials.

The design equation used is as follows:

SN = a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3+... (2)

Where: ai = i-th layer coefficient

Di = i-th layer thickness (inches), and
mi = i-th layer drainage coefficient (drainage effect on the Asphalt layer is not considered in the AASHTO 93 guide)

The subscripts 1, 2 and 3 refer to the asphalt concrete course, aggregate base course and subbase course (if applicable)
respectively.

6
3.2 Design Requirements
The basic requirements for flexible pavement design could be classified into four categories;
Design Variables, Performance Criteria, Material Properties for Structural Design, and Pavement Structural Characteristics, as
described in the following sections.

3.2.1 Design Variables

Time Constraints
Performance period, refers to the period of time that an initial pavement structure will last before it needs rehabilitation.
Analysis period, refers to the period of time for which the analysis will be conducted, it is analogous to the term “design life”.
Table 4 presents guidelines for analysis period. If the designer considers the performance period equal to the analysis period, it
means that the initial structure is assumed to be lasting the entire analysis period.

Figure 1. Chart for easy determination of SN (F-I = 20 years).

7
 Table 2 - WSDOT Flexible Pavement Layer Thicknesses Design Table for New or Reconstructed Pavements (Metric Version)
Layer Thickness1 (mm)

Subgrade Reliability = 75% Reliability = 85% Reliability = 95%

Design Period ESALs
Condition HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA
Crushed Crushed Crushed
Surface Base ATB Surface Base ATB Surface Base ATB
Stone2 Stone2 Stone2
Course Course Course Course Course Course
Poor 105 - - 380 120 - - 400 135 - - 440
0.5 - 1 million Average 105 - - 200 120 - - 215 135 - - 230
Good 105 - - 75 120 - - 75 135 - - 75
Poor 105 90 90 90 105 105 90 90 105 135 90 90
1 - 5 million Average 105 90 - 90 105 105 - 90 105 135 - 90
Good 75 75 - 90 75 75 - 90 105 75 - 90
Poor 105 120 90 105 105 135 90 105 105 165 90 105
5 - 10 million Average 105 120 - 105 105 135 - 105 105 150 - 105
Good 75 90 - 105 105 75 - 105 105 90 - 105
Poor 105 150 90 135 105 165 90 135 105 210 90 135
10 - 25 million Average 105 135 - 135 105 150 - 135 105 180 - 135
Good 105 75 - 135 105 90 - 135 105 120 - 135
Poor 105 180 90 135 105 210 90 135 105 245 90 135
25 - 50 million Average 105 165 - 135 105 180 - 135 105 230 - 135
Good 105 105 - 135 105 120 - 135 105 150 - 135
Poor 105 210 90 135 105 230 90 135 105 260 90 135
50 - 75 million Average 105 180 - 135 105 210 - 135 105 245 - 135
Good 105 120 - 135 105 135 - 135 105 165 - 135
1. Based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures for flexible pavements with the following inputs:
ΔPSI = 1.5 asurface HMA = 0.44 Subgrade condition (effective modulus):
S0 = 0.50 abase HMA = 0.44 Poor: MR = 35 MPa (5,000 psi)
m = 1.0 aATB = 0.30 Average: MR = 70 MPa (10,000 psi)
acrushed stone = 0.13 Good: MR = 140 MPa (20,000 psi)
2. Gravel borrow may be substituted for a portion of crushed stone when the required thickness of the crushed stone is at
least 210 mm. The minimum thickness of crushed stone is 105 mm when such a substitution is made.
3. Shaded areas indicate unlikely combinations of ESALs and reliability for mainline roadways.
 Table 3 - WSDOT Flexible Pavement Layer Thicknesses Design Table
for New or Reconstructed Pavements - LOW ESAL LEVELS (Metric Version)
Layer Thickness1 (mm)
HMA Surfaced BST Surfaced
Subgrade Reliability = 75% Reliability = 75%
Design Period ESALs
Condition
HMA
Crushed Crushed
Surface BST
Stone2 Stone2
Course
Poor 75 250 25 455
< 100,000 Average 75 230 5
25 340
5
Good 75 230 25 2805
Poor 90 290 25 540
100,000 to 250,000 Average 90 215 5
25 400
5
Good 90 215 25 305
Poor 105 305 25 605
250,000 to 500,000 Average 105 200 5
25 455
5
Good 105 200 25 340
1. Based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures for
flexible pavements
with the following inputs:
Subgrade condition (effective
ΔPSI = 1.7 aBST = 0.20
modulus):
S0 = 0.50 acrushed stone = 0.13 Poor: MR = 35 MPa (5,000 psi)
m = 1.0 Average: MR = 70 MPa (10,000 psi)
Good: MR = 140 MPa (20,000 psi)
2. Gravel borrow may be substituted for a portion of crushed stone when the
required thickness of the crushed stone is at least 245 mm. The minimum
thickness of crushed stone is 105 mm when such a substitution is made.
3. The assumed elastic modulus for BST (EBST) is 690 MPa (100,000 psi)
4. The assumed thickness for all BST layers is 25 mm (1 inch).
5. Crushed stone thickness increased to a total pavement structure of
approximately 305 mm (1.00 ft) based on moisture and frost conditions.

Table 4 - Analysis period

9
Reliability
The reliability concept basically means of incorporating some degree of certainty into the design process to ensure that the
various design alternatives will last the analysis period. Generally as the volume of traffic, and importance of the roadway
increases, the risk of not performing to expectations must be minimized. This is accomplished by selecting higher levels of
reliability. Table 5 presents recommended levels of reliability for various functional classifications.

Table 5 - Suggested levels of reliability

For a given reliability level (R), the reliability factor (FR ) is defined as follows:

FR = 10-ZR*S0 (3)

where ZR is the standard normal deviate, and So is the overall standard deviation.

The combined standard error variable defines how widely the two basic design inputs, traffic and performance, can vary. Its
value should be selected to represent the local conditions. Typical values of So are 0.40 to 0.5 for flexible pavements and 0.35
to 0.40 for rigid pavements.

The value of So developed at the American Association of Highway Officials (AASHO) road was 0.45 for flexible pavements.
Table 6 provides values for reliability and ZR.

Table 6 - Standard normal deviates for various levels of reliability.

Reliability R (%) Standard normal deviate (ZR) Reliability (%) Standard normal deviate (ZR)

50 0.000 93 -1.476
60 -0.253 94 -1.555
70 -0.524 95 -1.645
75 -0.674 96 -1.751
80 -0.841 97 -1.881
85 -1.037 98 -2.054
90 -1.282 99 -2.327
91 -1.340 99.9 -3.090
92 -1.405 99.99 -3.750

The (W18) for the design equation (1) is determined as follows:

W18 = w18 x FR (4)

10
If the designer substitutes the traffic (w18) directly into the design equation for W18, then FR = 1 and R will then be 50 %.
The designer is thereby taking a 50-50 chance that the designed sections will not survive the analysis period traffic with a
serviceability p < pt.

Environmental Effects
For more details on the environmental effects on pavement performance refer to “AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement
Structures”, 1993. For the purpose of this technical reference, the total loss in serviceability will be assumed all due to traffic
load during the analysis period.

3.2.2 Performance Criteria

Serviceability
The serviceability of a pavement is defined as its ability to serve the type of traffic which uses the facility, the measure of
serviceability is the Prime Serviceability Index (PSI) which ranges from 0 (impossible road), to 5 (perfect road).

The 93 AASHTO Guide uses the total change in serviceability index (ΔPSI) as the serviceability design criterion which is defined
as follows:

ΔPSI = po - pt (5)

where,
po = initial serviceability index. A value of 4.2 was observed at the AASHO Road Test for flexible pavements
pt = terminal serviceability index, which is based on the lowest index that will be tolerated before rehabilitation. An index of 2.5
or higher is suggested for design of major highways and 2.0 for roadways with lesser traffic volumes.
Suggested values are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 - suggested values for po - pt

The resilient modulus of the formation soil

The empirical AASHTO design equation (1) is based on the resilient modulus MR which is correlated with the CBR value of the
foundation soil by Eq. (6).

ESG (or MR) [psi] = 1500 x CBR (6)

ESG (or MR) [kPa] = 10335 x CBR

Note: equation (1) is empirical and therefore Mr must be introduced in units of psi.

Indicative values are provided in Table 8.

11
Table 8 - Indicative values of soil parameters

12
The layer coefficients
Layer coefficients are empirical relationships between structural number (SN) and layer thicknesses which expresses the
relative ability of a material to function as a structural component of the pavement. The magnitude of the layer coefficient is a
function of the modulus of the material layer. Table 9 – 13 provide reference values.

Table 9 - Layers coefficients

Marshall Strength at 7 LAYER

LAYER MATERIAL CBR
stability (kg) days (kPa) COEFFICIENT

bituminous concrete 1.000 0,45

bituminous concrete 950 0,44
bituminous concrete 770 0,40
bituminous concrete 650 0,37
Surface
bituminous concrete 410 0,30
bituminous slurry 770 0,40
bituminous slurry 580 0,35
bitumated gravel 140 0,20
bitumated mix 770 0,33
bitumated mix 670 0,30
bitumated mix 550 0,27
bitumated mix 410 0,24
bitumen stabilized 270 0,20
bitumen stabilized 180 0,18
bitumen stabilized 140 0,16
Base cement stabilized 46 0,23
cement stabilized 32 0,20
calcium stabilized 21 0,15
calcium stabilized 13 0,12
crushed gravel 110 0,14
crushed gravel 90 0,13
mixed granular soil 70 0,12
mixed granular soil 50 0,10
crushed gravel 90 0,14
mixed granular soil 70 0,13
mixed granular soil 50 0,12
Subbase /
mixed granular soil 30 0,11
Foundation
naturally stabilized mix 20 0,10
naturally stabilized mix 10 0,075
naturally stabilized mix 5 0,05

13
Table 10 - Correlations between structural layer coefficient a2 and various strength and stiffness
parameters for unbound granular bases (AASHTO, 1993).

CBR (Scale Structural R-value (Scale derived Structural Texas Triaxial Structural Modulus - Structural
derived by Coefficient, by averaging correlations Coefficient, (Scale derived by Coefficient, 1000 psi Coefficient,
averaging a2 obtained from California, a2 averaging a2 (Scale a2
correlations New Mexico and correlations derived on
obtained from Wyoming) obtained from NCHRP
Illinois) Texas) project)
NOTE: Soil properties values are approximate and estimated based on the scale for Structural Coefficient, a2, from the
original figure included in the FHWA 05-037, May 2006, NHI Course No. 132040, Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements
Reference Manual/Participant Workbook
100 0.140 85 0.140 2.0 0.140 30 0.140
70 0.130 80 0.130 2.5 0.105 25 0.120
60 0.125 70 0.105 3.5 0.080 20 0.095
50 0.115 60 0.085 4.0 0.055 15 0.070
40 0.105 50 0.060
30 0.095
20 0.070

Table 11 - Correlations between structural layer coefficient a2 and various strength and stiffness
parameters for cement-treated granular bases (AASHTO, 1993).

Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi) Structural Coefficient, a2 Modulus - 1000 psi (Scale Structural
7 day break (Scale derived by averaging derived on NCHRP project) Coefficient, a2
correlations from Illinois, Louisiana and
Texas)
NOTE: Soil properties values are approximate and estimated based on the scale for Structural Coefficient, a2, from the
original figure included in the FHWA 05-037, May 2006, NHI Course No. 132040, Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements
Reference Manual/Participant Workbook
1000 0.250 10 0.265
800 0.220 9 0.240
600 0.190 8 0.215
400 0.155 7 0.190
200 0.125 6 0.150
5 0.115

14
Table 12 - Correlations between structural layer coefficient a2 and various strength and stiffness
parameters for bituminous-treated granular bases (AASHTO, 1993).

Marshall Stability, lb. (Scale derived by Structural Modulus - 1000 psi (Scale Structural
correlation obtained from Illinois) Coefficient, a2 derived on NCHRP project) Coefficient, a2
NOTE: Soil properties values are approximate and estimated based on the scale for Structural Coefficient, a2, from the
original figure included in the FHWA 05-037, May 2006, NHI Course No. 132040, Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements
Reference Manual/Participant Workbook
1900 0.330 4
1800 0.320 3
1700 0.305 2.5
1600 0.295 2
1500 0.285 1.5
1400 0.270 1
1300 0.260 4.0 0.335
1200 0.250 3.0 0.275
1100 0.240 2.5 0.250
1000 0.230 2.0 0.220
900 0.215 1.5 0.190
800 0.205 1.0 0.125
700 0.190
600 0.180
500 0.170
400 0.160
300 0.145
200 0.125
100 0.090
0 0.065

15
Table 13 - Correlations between structural layer coefficient a3 and various strength and stiffness
parameters for unbound granular subbases (AASHTO, 1993).

CBR (Scale Structural R-value (Scale Structural Texas Triaxial Structural Modulus - Structural
derived by Coefficient, derived by Coefficient, (Scale derived Coefficient, 1000 psi Coefficient,
averaging a3 averaging a3 by averaging a3 (Scale a3
correlations correlations correlations derived on
obtained from obtained from obtained from NCHRP
Illinois) California, New Texas) project)
Mexico and
Wyoming)
NOTE: Soil properties values are approximate and estimated based on the scale for Structural Coefficient, a2, from the original
figure included in the FHWA 05-037, May 2006, NHI Course No. 132040, Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements Reference
Manual/Participant Workbook
100 0.140 90 0.140 2.0 0.140 20 0.135
70 0.130 80 0.130 3.0 0.120 15 0.110
50 0.125 70 0.120 4.0 0.085 14 0.105
40 0.120 60 0.105 5.0 0.045 13 0.095
30 0.110 50 0.090 12 0.090
20 0.095 40 0.070 11 0.085
10 0.080 30 0.055 10 0.075

The drainage coefficients

The drainage characteristics of the pavement are accounted for through the use of modified layer coefficients. Table 14
presents the definitions of drainage levels suggested in the AASHTO guide. The drainage of the bituminous layer (Layer 1) is
not considered in design.

A drainage layer shall be incorporated into the road structure for allowing removal of water in the shortest possible time. The
drainage layer may coincide with the base course is its permeability is sufficiently high. Figure 2 shows a possible solution with
a daylighted base.

Figure 2. Typical AC pavement with a daylighted base.

16
 Table 14 : definitions of drainage levels

The hydraulic design of the permeable layer is performed with the the time-to-drain approach, which simply means the time
required for a percentage of the free water (e.g., 50%) to drain, following a moisture event where the pavement section
becomes saturated.

The time-to-drain approach assumes the flow of water into the pavement section until it becomes saturated (the drainage layer
plus the material above the drainage layer). Excess precipitation will not enter the pavement section after it is saturated; this
water will simply run off the pavement surface. After the rainfall event, the drainage layer will drain to the edgedrain system.
Engineers must design the permeable layer to drain relatively quickly to prevent the pavement from being damaged.

A time-to-drain of 50% of the drainable water in 1 hour is recommended as a criterion for the highest class roads with the
greatest amount of traffic (FHWA, 1992). For most other high use roadways, a time-to-drain of 50% of the drainable water in 2
hours is recommended. For secondary roads, a minimum target value of 1 day is recommended (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1992). In all cases, the goal of drainage is to remove all drainable water as quickly as possible.

A simplified design chart for determining a time-to-drain of 50% time factor, T50, is provided in Figure 3. This chart was
developed for one degree (i.e., direction) of drainage and is adequate for most designs.

The time factor is based on the geometry of the drainage layer (e.g., the permeable base layer). The geometry includes the
resultant slope (SR) and length (LR); the thickness of the drainage layer (H), which is the length the water must travel within a
given layer; and, the percent drained (U), (i.e., 50%). SR and LR are based on the true length of drainage and are determined
by finding the resultant of the cross and longitudinal pavement slopes (SX and S, respectively) and lengths (Lx and L,
respectively). The resultant length is measured from the highest point in the pavement cross-section to the point where
drainage occurs (i.e., edgedrain or daylighted section).

17
 Figure 3. Time Factor for 50 Percent Drainage (after FHWA, 1992)

The intrinsic factors that represent the drainage capabilities of drainage layer base are represented by the effective porosity
(No) and the coefficient of permeability (k). The effective porosity is the ratio of the volume of water that can drain under
gravity from the material to the total volume of the material. It is a measure of the amount of water that can be drained from a
material. The value can be easily determined by saturating a sample of material and measuring the amount of water that
drains. Additional information on the determination of these characteristics for aggregate drainage layers are covered in detail
in FHWA, 1992.

The calculation of the Time to drain for the actual road structure, required for setting the Quality of Drainage from Table 14,
can be carried out as follows (see Figure 4):

Resultant slope: SR = (S + Sx2)1/2 (7)

Resultant length (m): LR = W (1 + (S / Sx)2)1/2 (8)

Slope Factor: S l = LR S R / H (9)

Time Factor: T50 = function of Sl from Fig. 16 (10)

“m” factor m (days): m = (N0 LR2) / (k H) (11)

Time to Drain (hours): t = 24 T50 m (12)

where:

W = width of permeable base (m)

S = longitudinal slope (m/m)
Sx = cross slope (m/m)
HBC = thickness of the drainage layer (m)
N0 = effective porosity of the drainage layer (i.e., the ratio of the volume of water that can
drain from a material to the total volume)
K = coefficient of permeability of the drainage layer (m/day)

18
 Figure 4. Scheme for calculation of Time to Drain

Table 15 presents the AASHTO recommended mi values as a function of the drainage quality and the percentage of time during
the year the pavement structure would normally be exposed to moisture levels approaching saturation.

Table 15. recommended mi values as a function of the drainage quality

19
 Table 16 - Asphalt Institute Conversion Factors for Estimating Thickness of Existing Pavement
Components to Effective Thickness (after Asphalt Institute, 1983)

Description of Layer Material Conversion Factor*

Native subgrade 0.0

Improved subgrade - predominantly granular materials

0.0
Lime modified subgrade of high PI soils

Granular subbase or base — CBR not less than 20

0.1 - 0.3
Cement modified subbases and bases constructed from low PI soils

Cement or lime-fly ash bases with pattern cracking

Emulsified or cutback asphalt surfaces and bases with extensive cracking, rutting, etc. 0.3 - 0.5

PCC pavement broken into small pieces

Asphalt concrete surface and base that exhibit extensive cracking 0.5 - 0.7

Asphalt concrete — generally uncracked

0.9 - 1.0
PCC pavement — stable, undersealed and generally uncracked pavement

*Equivalent thickness of new asphalt concrete

Equivalent axle loads (ESAL)

The number of 18 kips (80 kN) equivalent axle loads (ESAL) applications shall be calculated as described in Appendix A.

Existing Pavement
When considering existing pavement layers, conversion factors shall be applied to their thickness to make them equivalent to
new layers. Suggested conversion factors are given in Table 16.

20
3.3 Modified AASHTO Method With Maccaferri MacGrid Series

The structural contribution of a Maccaferri MacGrid EG geogrid on a flexible pavement system can be quantified by the increase
in the layer coefficient of the aggregate base course. Equation (2) now becomes:

SN = a1 x D1 + LCR x a2 x D2 x m2 + LCR x a3 D3 m3 + ... (13)

where LCR is the Layer Coefficient Ratio, with a value higher than one.

LCR value is determined based on the results from laboratory testing on flexible pavement systems with and without Maccaferri
geogrid:

(14)

where SNr, structural number of the reinforced section, and SNu, structural number of the unreinforced section, used in
Equation (14), are both evaluated under the same pavement conditions, i.e same base course depth, subgrade CBR, and rut
depth.

Figure 5 shows the LCR values against the subgrade CBR.

The reduction in aggregate base thickness can be evaluated by the use of Maccaferri geogrid using Equation (13) (assuming no
sub-base layer):

(15)

or instead, the asphalt thickness can be reduced; the asphalt thickness can be calculated as follows:

(16)

Note:
the pavement contribution to the Structural Number is given by the term a1 x D1; in this way the wearing course contribution is
neglected and only the binder contribution is taken into account.

When, due to local regulations or technical requirements, the wearing course shall be designed with a larger thickness than 1.0
inch (25.4 mm), its contribution to SN can be accounted for by putting:

a1 x D1 = awearing course x Dwearing course + abinder x Dbinder (17)

21
 Figure 5. Layer Coefficient Ratio for Maccaferri EG Geogrids vs. Subgrade CBR.

3.3.1 Design With Subbase

Equation (13) can be solved for one variable only, usually for the base thickness D2. Equation (15) can be used only if the
subbase is not included in the road structure.

When the subgrade is very soft (example: CBRsubgrade < 1.0) it is often required to design for base + subbase. In these cases
usually the subbase is used also to provide a working platform for construction. Since Eq. (13) can be solved only for either
base or subbase thickness, it is suggested that the subbase thickness D3 is designed to resist the construction activities before
building the base and pavement layers. During construction activities the subbase works like an unpaved road, loaded by the
passages of trucks and dumpers.

Hence the subbase can be designed either as an unreinforced aggregate layer or a reinforced one with geotextiles and/or
geogrids, using the Giroud – Han or the Leng - Gabr method (see the Maccaferri Guide for Design of Unpaved Roads)
with the following input parameters:

- number of passages: N = 100 – 10,000 (depending on total construction activity prior of building base and
pavement):
- allowable rut depth: S3 = 25 – 50 mm (if larger rut depth is allowed, then ruts shall be filled and graded
before base construction).

The thickness D3 of the subbase now is known; hence it can be introduced in Equation (13) for calculating the base thickness
D2. If it is anticipated that the construction activity will be very intense and that the subbase will be partially damaged, when
calculating the base thickness D2 it is suggested to introduce in Eq. (13) the following reduced values for the subbase:

LCR3* = LCR3 x 0,80

D3* = D3 – S3

If the subbase will not be used to provide a working platform for construction, it can still be designed with the Giroud – Han or
the Leng - Gabr method, either as unreinforced or reinforced with geotextiles and/or geogrids, with the following input
parameters:

- number of passages: N = 10
- allowable rut depth: S3 = 25 mm

22
4. References
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, “AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures”,
1993.

23