1. Report No.
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient'sCatalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Mechanistic Flexible Pavement Overlay Design Program
5. Report Date
6. Performing Organization Code
Zhong Wu, Ph.D., P.E., and Kevin Gaspard, P.E.
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge, LA 70803
10. Work Unit No.
11. Contract or Grant No.
LTRC Project Number: 06-2PState Project Number: 736-99-1369
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Louisiana Department of Transportation and DevelopmentP.O. Box 94245Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final ReportMarch 2006-December 2008
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Conducted in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
The current Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) overlay thickness design method follows the “ComponentAnalysis” procedure provided in the 1993 AASHTO pavement design guide. Since neither field nor laboratory tests are required by LADOTD forthis method, pavement engineers usually rely on a pre-assigned parish-based typical subgrade resilient modulus value and a set of assumed layercoefficients for determining the effective structural number of an existing pavement in an overlay thickness design. This may lead to significant errorsin the designed overlay thickness results because the selected design parameters do not represent actual field conditions.The objective of this research was to develop an overlay design method/procedure that is used for a structural overlay thickness design of flexiblepavement in Louisiana based upon (1) in-situ pavement conditions and (2) non destructive test (NDT) methods, specifically the falling weightdeflectometer (FWD) and/or Dynaflect.Fifteen overlay rehabilitation projects were selected for this study. These projects were strategically located throughout Louisiana with differenttraffic levels. At each selected project, NDT deflection tests including the falling weight deflectometer (FWD) and Dynaflect were performed at a0.1-mile interval. For some of the selected projects, detailed condition survey data including cracking, rut depth, International Roughness Index (IRI),mid-depth temperature, and pavement thickness was also collected. Six NDT-based overlay design methods were selected and used in the overlaythickness design analysis. Results indicated that the 1993 AASHTO NDT procedure generally over estimated the effective structural number for theexisting asphalt pavements in Louisiana, which would result in an under-designed overlay thickness. On the other hand, other NDT methods (i.e.,ROADHOG, Asphalt Institute MS-17, Louisiana 1980 Deflection method, ELMOD5, and EVERPAVE) were found inapplicable to the Louisianapavement conditions because all those methods rely on locally calibrated design parameters. Since further calibration of those NDT methods requiresadditional testing resources and is also considered very time-consuming, a modified FWD deflection based overlay thickness design method wasproposed in this study. This method, based upon the Louisiana Pavement Evaluation Chart (a relation between Dynaflect deflections and thestructural number of existing pavements) and in-situ subgrade modulus, is deemed able to directly represent Louisiana’s pavement condition. Thecost/benefit analysis revealed that, as compared to the current LADOTD component analysis method, the proposed NDT-based overlay designmethod would potentially save millions of dollars in the flexible pavement rehabilitation in Louisiana. Therefore, before full implementation of thenew Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E) pavement design method, the proposed NDT-based overlay design method is recommended for implementation byLADOTD.
17. Key Words
Overlay design, non destructive testing, FWD, Dynaflect
18. Distribution Statement
Unrestricted. This document is available through theNational Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA21161.
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
21. No. of Pages