Mechanistic-Empirical

Pavement Design Guide

Tommy Nantung
INDOT Research and Development Division

February 13, 2014

Pavements are designed to fail
(in a predictable way)
Performance vs. Design Life
From AASHTO 1993
MEPDG Procedure
 Designer enters a trial
design for a given set
of site conditions
 Design software
analyzes the trial
design and predicts
performance
 Design may be
modified until agency
performance It means, there is no
requirements are met unique solution
MEPDG as a Tool
Pavement Design Pavement Analysis
 “Practical” pavement  Pavement analysis
design tool for  Materials acceptance
practitioners  Pavement performance
analysis
 Others
 Academic exercise
Which one is first?
Chicken Egg
 Correct traffic data  Local calibration
Pavement ME
MEPDG – DARWin-ME – Pavement ME
Climate
Traffic
Materials

Structure

Damage

Time
Damage
Response Accumulation Distress
M-E Design Process

Traffic Model
Input Data

Pavement
Environmental Distress Performance
Response
Effects Model Models Predictions
Model(s)

Material Characterization Models

User’s Decisions
Inputs
General Traffic Climate Structure

Selection of Trial Design

Structural Responses (s, e, d)

Revise trial design

Damage Accumulation with Time

Calibrated Damage-Distress Models

Distresses Smoothness
Design Design
Reliability Requirements
Performance Verification Satisfied? No
Failure criteria
Yes
Feasible Design
AASHO Road Test Location

Ottawa,
IL
Field Performance - The LTPP Study
Rigid Pavement Principle
Importance of Traffic

What is an ESAL?
(based on serviceability)

et, or st
d ec
Which criterion?
(they don’t all give the same result!)
Traffic Input – No More ESALs

Number of axles by:

• Axle type
• Truck type
• Axle load interval
Effects of Climatic Conditions
70
17 million trucks (31 million ESALs)
9.5-in slab; 15-ft joint spacing; 4-in CTB
Percent slabs cracked

60 28-day PCC MR = 700 psi

α = 6 x 10-6 /°F
Southern
50
California
40

30

20
Illinois
10

0
3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6

28-day PCC modulus of elasticity, million psi

Combined Effects of αPCC and EPCC
45
α = 5.5 x 10-6 /°F
40 α = 6.0 x 10-6 /°F
Percent slabs cracked

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
28-day Epcc = 3.6 million psi 28-day Epcc = 4.2 million psi
Incremental Damage Calculation
Time
increment PCC Strength
CTB
Traffic

Base
Modulus

Subgrade
Modulus

0 2 4 6 8
Time, years
Stress and Strain in Rigid Pavement
Curling stress
Stress and Strain in Rigid Pavement
Curling stress
JPCP Bottom-up Cracking
(Mid-slab Load + Positive Curl/Warp Condition)

Base

Subgrade

Critical stress region at

bottom of slab
JPCP Top Down Cracking
(Joint Load + Negative Curl/Warp Condition)
Critical stress
region at top of slab

Base

Subgrade
Critical Loading Condition
Bottom-up cracking

Direction
of traffic
Outside Lane

Shoulder
Critical location
(bottom of slab)
Critical Bottom-up Stresses
Critical Loading Condition
Top-down cracking

Direction
of traffic
Outside Lane

Shoulder
Critical location
(top of slab)
Critical Top-down Stresses
JPCP Top-down Cracking

Top of slab
(crack initiation)
Concrete Properties
 Design Guide uses
Gain Curves to
estimate the values of
structural properties
at any time during the
design life for use in
mechanistic damage
analysis.
Influence of Traffic to Performance
Concrete Asphalt
 IRI  IRI
 Mid-slab cracking  Fatigue cracking
 Faulting  Asphalt rutting
 Total rutting
 Top down cracking
Ride Quality
International Roughness Index (IRI)

Gain
1
Speed = 80 km/h

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Wavelength, m

 (Vertical Distance)
Horizontal Distance

(“Little Book”, 1998)

Joint Faulting in JPCP
Transverse Cracking in JPCP
Punchout in CRCP
Importance of Traffic
 The most single parameter that influences
the pavement design
Traffic in Pavement ME
Effects of Axle Weight
Top-down cracking
100% 10%

90% 9%

Damage Contribution, %
80% < 5% of traffic 8%
Remaining Traffic, %

70% 35% of total damage 7%

60% 6%

50% 5%

40% 4%

30% 3%

20% 2%

10% 1%

0% 0%
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
Tandem axle load, kips
Problems in Traffic Data
Truck Class Distribution
50.00

45.00

40.00

35.00
Unclassified trucks
Truck Volume (%)

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C0
Truck Class

Planning data: 126,005 AADT

WIM actual data: 101,199 AADT
Traffic Data Analysis
Truck Weight Road Groups
 Indiana has 56 WIM sites, 7 more to come
 Provide files for:
 Monthly Adjustment Factor
 Vehicle Class Distribution
 Hourly Distribution
 Axle Load Distribution
 Groups
 A for AADTT = 1 to 3,000
 B for AADTT = 3,001 to 6,000
 C for AADTT = 6,001 to 20,000
 D for AADTT > 20,000
Default Traffic Load Spectra

Parameter Input Level 1 Input Level 3

AADTT, Segment specific Not Required
(Seasonal)
Truck type Segment specific, Default – TTC
distribution AVC
Axle weight Segment specific, Default – TTC
distribution WIM
AADT Not Required Segment specific, counts

% Trucks Not Required Segment specific, counts

• Tire Pressures
• Axle Configurations
• No. of Axles per Truck Type
Hourly Distribution of Trucks
Influences the curling
Traffic Wander

Used to calculate
Pavement Shoulder
pavement responses &
the number of axle load
applications over a point
for predicting distress &
x
performance
Direction of traffic
 Mean wheel location
Typical Values  Standard deviation
X (mean) = 457 mm (18 in)  Design lane width
X (SD) = 254 mm (10 in)
Which one is first if your traffic data is not
correct?
Chicken Egg
 Correct traffic data  Local calibration
Design Features
Joint Spacing
 As a last resort to
reduce the pavement
Direction
curling stress Outside Lane of traffic
 INDOT suggestions
 15, 16, 17, and 18 feet
 Calculate it based on Shoulder

cost savings Critical location

(top of slab)
 Thickness versus D1
joint costs
Widened slab
 Slab width is assumed
12 feet
 Slab width can be 12 to
14 feet
 Influence the thickness
<10 inches
 The paint stripe is
painted at 12 feet width
 Pavement ME can be
used to design
pavement <12 feet,
adjust the traffic wander
Tied Concrete Shoulder
 Requires correct input of
Load Transfer Efficiency
(LTE)
 Monolithically placed and
tied with deformed bars
traffic lane and shoulder
 50 to 70% LTE
 Separately placed and
tied with deformed bars
traffic lane and shoulder
 30 to 50% LTE
PCCP Materials
Mix Property Inputs
 Inputs for concrete mix
 Cement type
 Type I or Type II or Type III (select from list)
 Cement content
 Definition: Weight of cement per cubic yard of
concrete
 Water-cement ratio
 Definition: Ratio of water to cement by weight
 Aggregate type
 Mineral composition of aggregate (select from list)
Input 1 2 3
Level   
Mix Property Inputs, cont.
 Inputs for concrete mix
 Used to predict concrete set temperature
 Input values
 Project-specific inputs
 Typical value is agency-specific

Input 1 2 3
Level   
Mix Property Inputs, cont.
 Shrinkage inputs
 Ultimate shrinkage
 Definition: Shrinkage predicted at a relative
humidity of 40%
 Either user inputs or program calculates
 Reversible shrinkage
 Definition: Percentage of ultimate shrinkage that is
reversible
 Typical value: 50%

Input 1 2 3
Level   
Mix Property Inputs, cont.
 Shrinkage inputs, cont.
 Time to develop 50 percent of ultimate
shrinkage
 Typical value: 35 days

 Curing method
 Curing compound (mostly)

 Wet curing

Input 1 2 3
Level   
Strength Property Inputs

Input Compressive Modulus of Modulus of Tensile

Strength Elasticity Rupture Strength
Level (f’c) (E) (Mr) (ft) *
1   
2 

3**   
 Level 1 and 2: Inputs at 7, 14, 28, 90 days, and strength
ratio at 20 years
* Required only for CRCP design
 Level 3: Inputs @ 28 days
**Require either f’c, or Mr, or E and f’c, or E and Mr
Strength Property Inputs, cont.
 Compressive strength, f’c
 Definition: Axial stress at failure under

compressive load
 Test: ASTM C 39

 Typical value: 4,500 psi

Input 1 2 3
Level  
Strength Property Inputs, cont.
 Elastic modulus, E
 Definition: Ratio of stress to strain when the

material is elastic
 Indicator of deformation characteristics of the
material
 Test: ASTM C 469

 Typical value: 4,200,000 psi

Input 1 2 3
Level  
Strength Property Inputs, cont.
 Modulus of rupture, Mr
 Definition: Bending stress in concrete at

failure (under flexural loads)

 Indicator of tensile strength

 Test: ASTM C 78

 Typical value: 700 psi

Input 1 2 3
Level  
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

“Life is like a box of chocolates,

you never know what you will get next.”
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
Crushed Stone #8
Drainage Layer
Granular Stone #53
Separation Layer
Soil Treatment
Subgrade Soil
Particle-Size Analysis (ASTM D 422)
3in 2in 1in 3/4in No.4 No.8 No.40 No.200
100

90

80

70

Percent Passing (%)

60

50

40

p430
20

p20010
0
100 D60 10 1 0.1 0.01
Sieve Opening (mm)

Input 1 2 3
Level   
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)

Plasticity Index = Liquid Limit - Plastic Limit

Input 1 2 3
Level   
Moisture-Density Relationship
(ASTM D 698, D1557)
130

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

126
gdmax
122

118

114
wopt
110
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Gravimetric Moisture Content (%)

Input 1 2 3
Level  
Resilient Modulus
(NCHRP 1-28A, AASHTO T307)
IRI issue in smoothness model (empirical)

IRI = IRII + 0.8203*cracking + 0.4417*Spalling +

1.4929*Faulting + 25.24*SF
Where:
IRII = Initial IRI
SF = Site Factor = AGE*(1 + FI)(1 + P0.075)/106
AGE = pavement age, yr
FI = Freezing index, oC days
P0.075 = percent subgrade material passing 0.075-mm
sieve
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement
Results
Results
Sensitivity

Percent Slabs
Parameter Roughness Faulting
Cracked
Level 3
Modulus of Rupture S NS VS
Compressive Strength S NS VS
Level 2
Compressive Strength S NS VS
20-year/28-day Ratio S NS VS
Level 1
Modulus of Rupture S NS VS
Modulus of Elasticity S NS VS
20-year/28-day Ratio S NS VS
Sensitivity

Percent Slabs
Parameter Roughness Faulting
Cracked
Permanent Curl/Warp
Effective Temperature VS VS VS
Difference
Joint Spacing VS VS VS
Dowel Bar Diameter MS MS NS
Pavement Thickness S MS VS
Poisson’s Ratio MS MS S
Coefficient of Thermal
VS VS VS
Expansion
Thermal Conductivity S MS VS
MEPDG as a Tool
Pavement Design Pavement Analysis
 “Practical” pavement  Materials acceptance
design tool for  Pavement performance
practitioners analysis
 Constructability matters,  Others
0.5 inch precision is  Academic exercise
excellent  High precision to 0.01
inch
Questions???