Leite ee heoeeCora Lode Pernt dReview of Mechanistic-Empirical design approach for asphalt pavements Ankit Gupta Chall Engineering Departmen, Indian Institue of Teclnwloge (BIE Varanasi, Uae Pradest, Inalia Sanjeev Adhikari School of Bugineceing and Information Systems, Morehead State University, Morcheud, KY, USA ABSTRACT, Mevhanistic-Empirical (M-E) design of asphalt pavements is being popu- larly used in various countries. In M-E design approach, pavement structure is idealized as a layered structure and the critical mechanistic parameters like stress or strain is correlated with the failure criteria, Fatigue and rutting are the two primary and common structural failure modes in asphalt pavements. Traditionally, for fatigue failure the initial critical hori- zontal tensile strain (¢,) at the bottom of asphalt layerand for rutting failure the initial © cal vertical compressive strain (e,) at the top of subgrade layer respectively, are empirically correlated with the fatigue life and rutting life of the pavement section, Accordingly, a safe design solution is obtained iteratively so that the fatigue and rutting lile is not less than the estimated traffic repetitions during the design life, usually under standard loading condi- tions. A lot of work has been done on M-E design approach for asphalt pavements over the 4.5 decades. Hence, this study aimed to do critical and comprehensive review of the M-E design of asphalt pavements. Few research gaps were identified on which the work can be done in future, 1 INTRODUCTION Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E) design principle of asphalt pavements is widely used in vari- ous countries (AASHTO, 1993; Al, 1999; Austroads, 2004; French, 1997; Gupta et al. 2015; Huang, 2004; IRC, 2012; NCHRP, 2004; Shell, 1978; Theyse et al., 1996: TRL, 1993; WSDOT, 1995). Typically, the pavement structure is idealized as a layered structure (normally used on multi-layered elastic structure) consisting of three to four layers, Pavement design is not only performed based on the ultimate load or strain condition but also it is designed from con- siderations of the number of load repetitions (vehicular and thermal load), In M-E design, pavement can sustain during a specific design period, except for shrinkage eracking in cold regions, Fatigue and rutting are the twocommon and primary distress mechanisms in asphalt pavements, Fatigue is caused due to repetitive bending action and rutting is caused due to accumulated permanent deformation of the individual layer with load repetitions, Normally, 20% surfacing cracking is used as fatigue [uilure criterion and 20 mm rut depth is used as rutting failure criterion (A, 1999; Huang, 2004; IRC, 2012; NCHRP, 2004). For individual failure mode, the total number of repetitions till failure is empirically correlated with mecha- nistic parameters of the pavement section, which is known as M-E transfer function. Tradi- tionally, fatigue and rutting transfer functions relate with initial critical strain parameters. For given initial strain, the number of load repetitions at which the pavement section failure is recorded as pavernent life (fatigue life or rutting life). The strains for fatigue and rutting evaluation can be determined using dilTerent structural analysis programs, ‘The understanding of structural behaviour of asphalt pavements is complex. This is due to many reasons such as multiple failures, compleaity involved with material’s characteristics, 191vehicular loadings, structural layers and environmental factors. Before M-E pavement, the design procedures followed with more empirical in nature rather than mechanistic, A new philosophy has been adopted in the recent MEPDG guidelines (NCHRP. 2004) to carry ‘out detailed distress development over the design life. It provides three levels of design. The empirical Paris law of cracks propagation for bottom-up cracks length is further empiri- cally corselated with the percentage of surface cracks area. However, it could not correlate adequately (Rajbongshi, 2008; Rajbongshi and Das, 2009). In the similar line, for the first time this auide has also introduced an approach for top-down fatigue cracking, where the top-down cracking has assumed at longitudinal direction. The use of vertical compressive strain at top of subgrade for traditional rutting evaluation has been abandoned, and instead, it considers the prediction of accumulated plastic strain with repetitions in each laye Traditionally, the fatigue and rutting performances for a given pavement section are eval- uated primarily based on the initial critieal horizontal tensile strain (e) at the bottom of asphalt layer and the initial critical vertical compressive strain (¢,) at the top of subgrade layer respectively. To calculate horizontal tensile strain and vertical compressive strain in 3-D multi-layered composite structure with distributed loads, it requires high technical skill, expertise manpower and good computing facility as wel Damage in pavement siructures propagates with repetitive loads, This happens due wo material(s) degradation due 1 load repetitions, which ultimately leads to Failure situation, To represent the structural degradation, various parameters like strain levels, cracks length, phase angle, energy dissipation, asphalt stilTness variation, permanent settlement, ete. can be used. In case of rutting distress, pavement damage is the accumulation of plastic strain as function of repetitions which directly reflects with the rutting evaluation criterion (ic. total rut depth). Therefore, for any given repetitions the rutting damage may be taken as the ratio ‘of rut depth to the allowable rut at failure (say, 20 mm). This is not case of fatigue perform- ance evaluation, Fatigue is caused due to repetitive loads in the asphalt layer and thus, cracks initiate at the bottom of asphalt layer and subsequently it propagates towards the surface. However, the fatigue failure is measured in terms of percentage of surface cracks area in the form of alligator or map cracking. Warious techniques can be applied for fatigue evaluation. Many researchers attempted to evaluate fatigue damage using fracture mechanics (Birgis- son et al., 2007; Di Pasquale and Cakmak, 1989; Ghuzlan and Carpenter, 2000; Huang, 2004; Krawinkler and Zobrei, 1983; Lundstrom, 2002; Jacobs et al,, 1996; Majidzadeh et ail, 1971: Ramsameoj, 1991; Roufaiel and Meyer, 1987; Zhang etal., 2001; Zhang et al., 2013), Fracture based cracks propagation in the asphalt mixtures is very complex and uncertain due to ner homogeneity and visco-elastic properties. This approach assumes an initial cracks and it fails to predict the damage prior to initiation of micro-cracks. Most of the teaffic repetitions in an in-service asphalt pavement, micro cracks appears prior to any visible eracks Also many litera- tures used dissipated energy approach to describe the asphalt fatigue behavior (Baburamani and Porter, 1996; Chomton and Valayer, 1972; Daniel and Bisirri, 2005; Pronk and Hopman, 1991; Shen and Carpenter, 2005; Shen et al., 2010; Van Dijk and Visser, 1977; Zhang et al., 2013). Dis- sipated energy approach assumes that all dissipated energy produces damage. Moreover, this is not true specially due to damping effect in visco-elastic materials like asphalt mixtures. ‘On account of structural degradation with load repetitions, the ineremental fatigue damage in each repetition would be different, The accumulated damage would vary nonlinearly with repetitions. Consideration of nonlinearity becomes important when the payement performance is assessed at-an intermediate condition of the structures either for maintenance purpose or for reliability based pavement design, Considering different load levels, nonlinear damage models is similar to double linear damage, damage curve, double damage curve, etc. Nonlinear dame age models were developed by various researchers (Manson et al., 1967; Manson and Halford, 1981: Richart and Newmark. 1948). However, these approaches do not account the effect of material dearadation with repetitions. Miner's hypothesis (Huang, 2044) also postulates linear damage with different loads orstrain levels. Most of M-E design practices also (AL, 1999; Aus- inmads, 2004; French, 1993; IRC, 2012: Shell, 1978) adopt a linear damage principle. In context of the fatigue damage evaluation in M-E approach, the asphalt stiffness redu tion with load repetitions may adequately represent the material deterioration which ul 192mately leads to fatigue failure. Traditionally, 50% reduction in asphalt stiffness is used as fatigue failure criteria (Buburamani, 1999, Chakroborty and Das, 2003; Huang, 2004; Kim et al., 2003; Lumdstrm, 2002; Mackicwicz, 2013; Read and Callop, 1997; SHRP, 1994), Vari- cous researchers (Collap and Cebon, 1996; Lundstiom, 2002; Oliveira et al. 2008; Under- wood and Kim, 2013) stusied the stiffness variation in different asphalt materials, vehicular loadings, structural layers and environmental factors 2 MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL (M-E) APPROACH An asphalt pavement is idealized as a layered structure which contains normally two to four layers made up of asphalt surfacing, base, sub-baseand subgrade layers. The structure failures of pavements happen due to repetitive vehicular and/or thermal loading (except shrinkage cracking). A pavement design should be sustainable to the repetitive loadings for a specific design period. Conceptually. Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E) principles of pavement design intend to correlate the most appropriate mechanistic parameter of the structure with the soumber of load repetitions for a specific failure or damage mechanism, Fatigue and rutting are two primary mechanisms of pavement failures. Traditionally, the inilial critical horizontal tensile strain (@,) al the bottom af’ asphalt layer for fatigue ease and initial eritieal vertical compressive strain (¢,) at the top of subgrade layer for rutting case are empirically correlated with the fatigue life and rutting life of pavement section respectively: For the first time, Kerkhoven and Dormion (1953) suggested to-use of vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade for rutting evaluation, Saal and Pell (1960) was the first to ree- ommend the use of horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of asphalt layer to minimize fatigue king. Dormon and Metcall (1965) also adopted these concepts for development of a rational design method. The concept of using e, and e, in pavement design has been adopted in various guidelines (AASHTO, 1993; AL, 1999; Austroads, 2M; French, 1997; IRC, 2012; NCHRP, 2004; Shell, 1978; TRL, 1993). Recent MEPDG guideline (NCHRP, 2004) has adopted a little different procedure than that of the traditional M-E design method Accurate estimation of e, and e, in the pavement structures are complex task Primary reasons of such complexities are—mullilayered and ils interaction between (wo layers, nom laste behavior of asphall material, structural boundary canditions, axle und wheel configu- rations including moving loads, environmental facters, ele, To avoid these limitations, certain simplifications and approximations are made in (he pavement analysis and the solutions for £, and ¢, ate obtained through numerical analysis, Software's such as ABAQUS, ANSYS, KENPAVE, FPAY. ete. are used by various researchers (Chandra et al, 0008, Das and Pan- fey, 1999; Gupta et al., 2018; Hadi and Bodhinayake. Kuo and Chou, 2004; Helwany et al., 1998; Lacey et al., 2007; Rahman et al., 2011) for numerical analysis and determined the various stress-strain parameters in pavement structures, 21 Fatigue parameters on M-E approach Fatigue in asphalt pavements occurs due to- repeated tensile stress/strain developed in the asphalt layer. The generated stress/strain eventually creates cracksat thecritical locations and then propagates. There are two types of fatigue phenomena namely, top down fatigue and bottom up fatigue Top down fatigue cracking is longitudinal or transverse cracks, thal initiate at the pavement surface and then propagate downward and outward, Various researchers (Gerristsen ot al 1987; Matsuno and Nishizawa, 1992; Myers et al., 1998; Swasdisant et al., 2002) have reported that top down cracking may propagate only within the asphalt surface or throughout the entire depth of the asphalt layer. Most of the longitudinal top dowa cracking is located in the viein- ity of the wheel paths (Gerristsen et al., 1987: Matsuno and Nishizawa, 1992; Svasdisant et al 2002). Based on field observations, Svasdisant ct al., (2002) have divided the development of top down fatigue cracking into three stages. The first stage consists of a single short longi- tudinal top down fatigue cracking appearing just outside the wheel path, The second stage 193develops where the short longitudinal top down fatigue cracking grows longer and new cracks develop parallel to the original crack. Finally the third stage evolves where the parallel longitu dinal top down fatigue cracking are connected via short transverse top down fatigue cracking Experimental methods that may provide the properties necessary 10 evaluate the susceptibility of HMA mixtures far this type of distress have been proposed by some researchers (Baek et al., 2012: Chen et al. 2012; Roque etal. 1999), Hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of top-down cracking can also be seen in literatures (Collop and Rogue, 204; Mollenhauer and Wistuba, 2012: Myers et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2003; Zou et al., 2012). Lu et al. (2014) used three-dimensional Finite Element (FE}model of the tire tread rubber- block te deseribe the stress-strain field of the pavement with top down fatigue cracking, Tt also discussed the effect Iaw of fracture characteristics for longitudinal cracks affected by the multiple loading parameters simultaneously. The result showed (hat there is nonlinear rela- nship between the equivalent stress intensity factor af the pavement and the load param- eters, and the longitudinal distance has a great influence on the equivalent stress intensity factor. Chen ct al. (2015) have studied the sensitivity of longitudinal cracking on asphalt pavement using MEPDG in permafrost region, The result of their study showed that the multiple regression analysis can be used te determine the remarkable influence factor more clliciently and Lo process the qualitative analysis while using MEPDG software in sensit analysis of longitudinal cracking in permatrost regions, The effect weights of three para eters in descending order are—air void, effective binder content and PG grade. Most common fatigue cracking in asphalt pavements is the bottom up fatigue racking. Due to the repetitive bending action on the asphalt materials, cracks initiate at the bottam of asphalt layer and gradually it propagates to the top/surface of the pavement in the form of allix gator or map cracking, Normally, 20% surface cracking is adopted as failure criterion and the corresponding number of repetitions is reeorded as fatigue life (Wj) (AT, 1999; Huang, 2004; TRC, 12; NCHRP, 2004), Fatigue lile (N,) of a pavement section is empirically correlated with the critical strain parameter, A general form of fatigue equations may be expressed as: ool PAT » where, Nis fitligue life in terms of a specific load level (say, standard axle load); ¢, is initial critical horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of asphalt layer; Fis initial stiffness of asphalt material and, &,, k, and &, are regression constants, Different literatures (Bebiry, 2012; Huang, 2004: Lee eral, 2003: Lundstr, M. 2002; Matthews era, 1993; Monismith, 2004; Shukla and Das, 2007, Sum er al, 2003; Matthews ev a, 1993; Oliveira er al,. 2008) suggest different val- us for these regression coefficients. Some of them are listed in Table | Some literatures (Huang, 2004; Majidzadeh et al. 1983: Powell et al., 1984; Thompson, 1987; Verstraeten et al,, 1982) reported fatigue equations without considering F, exclusively in Equation 1. The air voids and effective binder content of the asphalt mix are also included in some fatigue equations (AT, 1999; Hajj et al., 2005: Huang. 2004; NCHRP. 2004), Further, NCHRP (2004) has included an additional factor as function of asphalt layer thickness in calibrated Fatigue equation Initially, the fatigue equation is developed under certain laboratory conditions and suby quently, iis calibrated using field data, While developing the laboratory equation, a 2-point, 3-point ar 4-point bending test on asphalt beam samples are performed either in control strain of in conteal stress mode (Baburamani, 1999; Behiry, 2012; Huang, 2004; Lundstedim, 2002; Martone et al., 2007; Oliveira et al., 2008; Shen et al., 2006), Cyelic loading is allowed nor- mally at 8-10 Hz frequency till failure of the sample. Traditionally, 50% reduction of asphalt stiffness is used as failure criterion (Baburamani, 1999; Chakroborty and Las, 2003; Huang, 2004; Lundstrém, 2002), and the corresponding numbers of load repetition is recorded as laboratory fatigue life. However, under the field conditions a pavement structure is subjected to ncither in strain control nor in stress control. There is significant mismatched between the laboratory and field conditions in terms of loading conditions, structural conditions, failure 194Table 1. Parameters of different fatigue equations S.No. Organization Ay by ky References 1 Indian Road Congress 2218104 589 0,854 (IRC, 2012) 2 Asphalt Institute 1.133 x 1) 3.291 0.854 (MI. 1999: Huang, 2004) 3 Shell Research, (Behiry, 2012; Shell, 1978) 4 US Army Cons of Engineering 5 2.66 (Behiry, 2012; Huang, 2004) 5 NCHRP 5.949 1.281 (NCHRP. 2004) 6 — Hajjetal DOLL 10? 4.305 116 (Hajjer af, 2005) 7 Belgian Road Research Center 4.9210" 4.76 0 (Versteacten et af 1982; Huang, 2004) 8 Transportund Road Research «1.66% 10" 432 0 (Powell et ad. 1984; Laboratory (TRRL) Huang 2004 9 Illinais Department of Sx io sO (Thompson, 1987) Transportation 10 Federal Highway Administration 4.68 0 (Majidzadeh er, 1983) 11 Austin Research Engineers (ARE) 4875 3.0312. 0.06529 (Priest, 2005) Where, E, in Equation | isin MPa at s. no. 1 to Gand in psi at s no. LL definition, multiple failure mechanisms, environmental aspects, etc, and therefore a robust calibration is essential. Rajbongshi and Das (2009) had presented a systematic procedure for calibration of laboratory fatigue equation, To evaluate the fatigue damage progression in asphall materials, fracture mechanics and dis- sipated energy approaches are also used, OF course, they are involved with many approxima tions, complexities and empiricisms at different levels and their laboratory test conditions do not simulate the field situations. Fracture based models basically assumed an initial crack and subse- quently, the number of load repetitions is empirically correlated with the propagated crack length under certain test conditions Recent MEPDG guideline (NCHRP. 2004) uses the empirical Paris law of crack growth, where the bottom-up surfuce crack (in percentage of area) is further empiti- cally correlated with the cracks length, However, the cracks length prediction in asphalt mixes is very complex and uncertain, due (o non-homogencily «nd non-elastie material behaviour, An-in- service pavement cum sustain large number of repetitions before any visible surface cracks (Shen and Carpenter, 2007; Shen et al., 2006), Detail studies on cracks propagation in asphalt mixtures can be seen elsewhere (Birgisson et al., 2007; Ghuzlan and Carpenter, 2000; Jacobs et al., 1996; Lundstréim, 2002; Majidzadch et al, 1971; Ramsamooj, 1991; Zhang ct al., 200} There have been many efforts to use dissipated energy to deseribe the asphalt fatigue bshav- ior (Baburamani and Porter, 1996; Chomton and Valayer, 1972; Danicl and Bisirri, 2005; Pronk and Hopman, 1991; Shen and Carpenter, 2005; Shen et al, 2010; Van Dijk and V 1977, Zhang et al., 2013). The amount of energy dissipated varies with load repetitions due to mate- rial degradation, and the number of load repetitions is empirically correlated with the energy dissipated under the test conditions. This approach assumes that all dissipated energy produces damage. However, in visco-elastic materials like asphalt mix tends to store energy and a part of the dissipated energy can be converted into thermal energy through viseo-clastie damping, In view of the complex fatigue behawiour of asphalt materials, high computational clforts, and complex field situation, the pavement design methods adopted in various guidelines are still phenomenological and empirical in nature, Therefore, the most popular pavement design method adopted in various countries is the M-E approach whieh requires comparatively less computational effort and easy understanding. 2.2 Rutting parameters on M-E approach Rutting is permanent deformation in pavement sections along the wheel path. It may occur mainly due (0 a) densification of HMA due to vehicular Toad, by higher temperature on HMA layer, and c} settlement in the subgrade layer. 195Normally, a pavement is considered to be failed by rutting when it exhibits a rut depth of 20 mm [Al, 1999: IRC, 2012; Lekarp et al., 2000; NCHRP, 2004). Various rutting models are developed under accelerated pavement testing facility in the laboratory (Al-Khatecb ct i |; Barker et al,, 1977; Bejarano and Harvey, 2002; Choubane et al, 2006; Claessen et al,, ; Das and Pandey, 1999; Gokhale et al.. 2005; Pidwerbesky et al., 1997; Prowell et al., 2007) and subsequently, it is calibrated using field data. Vertical compressive strain at top of subgrade layer is correlated with the number of load repetitions at failure (Bebiry, 2012; Erlingsson, 2012; Guptast al, 2014; Huang, 2004; IRC, 2012; Ramsamooj et al, 1998; Saride ct al.. 2014; Selvi, 2015; Shell, 1978; Tarefider et al., 2010; TRRL, 1970; Qiao et al., 2015). The generi¢ form of rutting equation used in M-E pavement design can be expressed as: (2) where, N, is rutting life in terms of a specific load level (say standard axles load); e, is initial critical vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade layer and, ¢, and c, are regression constants, A large pool of rutting equations can be seen in different literatures, Some of these are listed in Table 2. Various researchers developed the rutting prediction model for asphalt mixtures with dif- ferent perspectives. For example, Fwa et al. (2004) developed different regression equations using ¢—d parameters, Collop ct al. (1995) included the visco-clastic propertics in rut predic- tion, Zhou et al, (2004) considered three diflerent stuges of rutting and so on, Ali et al, (1998) presented a rutting model based on data from the in-service pavernents and Simpson et al. (1995) tried to- predict the rutting using neural network, Resewrchers had tried 10 evaluate the rutting performance without utilizing the concept compressive strain (e.). The contribution of individual layer on total rut depth can be estimated from the accumulated plastic steain with repetitions (Archilla and Madanat, 2000; Archilla and Madanat, 2001; Chen et al. 2004; NCHRP, 2004; Stuart et al., 1999 Uzan, 2004). ‘Thus, the total rut depth as function of number of load repetitions (7) may be expressed as: Rutting Depth (1) = ert h a o where, ¢°(1) is accumulated plastic strain afer n repetitions af the # layer; and fis thickness of the # layer. This approach predicts rut depth under certain laboratory conditions for dif= ferent materials. Therefore, a robust field calibration is necessary based on field observations. Recent MEPDG (NCHRP, 2604) has adopted this method to find rutting life using, various empirical factors and, could obtained the correlation coefficient (R*) of 0.399 between the observed versus predicted rut depth. NCHRP (2006) suggested omitting this approach in the design pravess Jue to certain inadequacy and complexity im eval Table? Parameters of different rutting equations, S.No. Organization % References 1 Indian: Road Congress 4.166>10* 453 URE, 2012) 2 Asphalt Insticute 136% 10" 4.477 ¢AT, 1999; Huang, 2004) 5 Shell Research 615 x 10" 20012: Shell, 1978) 4 US Army Corps of Engineering 1.81 x 10- 2012; Huang. 2064) Belgian Road Research Center 08K 10% 4.35 2012; Huang, 2004) 6 Transport and Read Research = 618 x 10" 3.98 {TRRL, 1970) Laboratory (TRRL) 7 University of Nottingham LI3x10* 375 (Huang, 2008) 1963 DISCUSSION AND FUTURE SCOPE Mochanistic-Empizieal (M-E) pavement design approach is being popularly used in differ- ent countries. A brief literature: review on the current state of asphalt pavement design has been presented in the section. Some of the issues are identified related to the traditional M-E, design process, which need further considerations are summarized as follow: a, Asphalt pavement design equations are phenomenological in nature and involved with many approximations and empiricisms at different stages. This is due to substantial com- plexity understanding of the multiple failure mechanisms of 3-D muli-layered pavement scetions, non-homogenous and non-clastic matcrials in nature. Analysis of & 3-D compos ile structure is # complex task that requires high technical skill, expertise manpower and strong computing facility. A state department or a field engineer may not be comfortable or adequate for such infrastructure and technical supports. Therefore, effort should be made to provide easy calculation of various mechanistic parameters on the pavement design: b. It is well known fact that pavement design prediction in asphalt pavements is very uncer tain due to uncertainty in stress or strain estimation, Various uncertainties are—different assumptions, approximations and empiricisms associated with structural analysis, loading conditions and environmental factors, variability in materials properties and layers thick nesses, ele, These uncertainties can be accommodated using probabilistic method, For probabilistic strain calculation, one needs to know the distribution of strain parameters and its parameter(s), which depend on the various input parameters. Probabilistic pave- ment design approach, is necessary to establish the probability distribution of the mecha- nistic (ic. the strain) parameters ©. Fatigue and rutting arc identified as major modes of pawement failures. Ruling represents the accumulated plastic deformation of individual layer with the load repetitions, which increases nonlinearly with repetitions. In general, all the layers contribute to exhibit rul- ting. The noml 12 damage as function of repetitions can directly be obtained as the ratio of rut depth to failure rat depth (say, 20 mm), Such damage does not relate the material(s) damage in terms af structural response like increase in stress or strain level wear Putt However, it is not so in case of fatigue evaluation. The repetitive tensile strain at the bottom of asphalt layer is primarily responsible for eausing fatigue cracks, Eventually, these cracks are propagated toward the surface due to asphall material deterioration with load repeti- tions, That is, for a given pavement section the asphalt stiffness reduction is the primary degradation whieh ultimately leads to fatigue failure. Therefore, the reduction in stiffness parameter can be a good indicator to measure fatigue damage, irrespective of existence of any cracks or not. Normally, 30% reduction in asphalt stiffness is used as failure criterion under the laboratory condition either at constant strain or at constant stress amplitude. However, the stiffness variation with load repetitions under the field situation is neither in constant strain nor in constant stress situation, Both stress and strain inerease with redue- tiom in stiffness parameter due to repetitions, even if constant load intensity. [t is therefore important to establish a correlation between the stiffness variation under control (labora- tory) condition and stress-strain variation under the non-control (field) condition. REFERENCES AL-Khateeb, G., Gibson, N., and Qi., X. (2007). Mechanisti¢ analysis of PIWA’s nevelerated loud facility pavements primary response, Jr of the Transportation Research Board, Traaspertation Reseach Record No, 1990, pp.150 161, ‘Ali, HLA. Tayalyi, S.D., and Torre, FL. (1998), Calibration of mechanistic-empirical rutting model for in-service pavements, Jt. of the Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record No, 1629, pp. 9-168 “American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (1993), Guide for design of pavement structure, AASHTO, Washington, DC.