INTRODUCTION:
1.1. General:
Prediction of multilayered pavement performance under the combined action
of highway traffic and environmental conditions provides valuable information to the
highway agencies. This information is very useful for proper planning of maintenance and
rehabilitation activities, budget estimation and allocation of resources [Prozzi & Madanat,
2004]. For Pavement Management System (PMS), which is regarded as an integral input
part of infrastructure management, and defined by Guyilliamaumot et al.(2003) as the
process through which agencies collect and analyze data about infrastructure systems and
make decisions on the maintenance, repair and reconstruction of facilities over a planning
horizon, pavement failure is a highly variable event which not only depends upon material
properties, environmental and subgrade conditions and traffic loading, but also on the
specific definition of failure adopted by the agencies. Again, performance models dealing
with pavements (which are supposed to last for the entire service life) have to be
developed as risk based models to deal with the random process of failure and the
uncertainty [Sanchez et al. 2005]. With to regard PMS, pavement performances have to be
accessed separately for both the following requirements:
1. Functional performance: a subjective measure of the quality of the riding
conditions of the road from the users point of view.
2. Structural performance: a more objective measure which takes into account the
appearance of various forms of distress such as cracking, rutting, raveling,
faulting etc.
Correlating these two performance criteria is one of the most coveted
breakthroughs of performance prediction process and its subsequent action plan. This not
only would give PMS a cost optimum solution but also increase the sustainability of the
pavement.
Now, regarding the process of design of pavement, the Empirical design
approach and the MechanisticEmpirical design approach are the two basic approaches.
Empirical design approach is based solely on AASHO road test results conducted way back
in 1950s .These test results were used to establish a correlation between input and the
outcome of the process  e.g., pavement design and performance. But these relationships do
not have firm scientific basis (e.g.  structural analysis of pavement layers) and their
validity is vary much limited. On the other hand, the ME design approach is based on
estimation of critical stressstrain, obtained from structural analysis of pavement and
linking this mechanistic response to an observed distress by empirical relationship
Fund allocations in PMS largely depend upon improved prediction of field
performance of design solution on a seasonal basis. For this, different distress criteria have
to be estimated considering their uncertainty. Moreover, design procedure should provide a
consistent pavement performance level considering inherent variability associated with
design input parameters. [Kim, 2006]
1.2. Scope and Objective of the Work:
The MechanisticEmpirical (ME) approach of pavement design uses the theory
of mechanics to analyze the structural behavior of pavements under external effects like
traffic load, temperature effects etc. and correlate this mechanistic response to the
pavement distress observed in the field by empirical relationship. Hence, by use of rational
method this approach has largely remove the drawbacks of the age old Empirical approach
and at the same time it is capable of giving design solutions for different kinds of field
conditions in terms of new materials, construction procedures, changed traffic
characteristics viz. wheel load and axle type, new climatic conditions etc. [Hong, 2004].
But, from the literature review (presented in Chapter 5), it is apparent that still the ME
design approach has failed to give consistent field performance due to the inherent
variability in the design process.
From earlier woks it has been observed that past studies it has been found that
field behavior of pavements have been given priority in design analysis. Research efforts
have given to formulate them in accordance with the design input parameters in one way or
other. In this regard, use of the parameter PSI (Present Serviceability Index) was a more
subjective application. PSI estimates the combined effects of several failure criteria
2
(fatigue, rutting, roughness etc.).But, in the new ME method these distresses are considered
individually so that the design would stand on each criteria. Among all these, traffic load
induced fatigue distress is the predominating cause of pavement failure and hence it has
been considered as a major design criterion in many flexible pavement design guidelines
[Zhang et al., 2003]. Now, fatigue distress is more rationally described as fatigue cracking
which is evaluated in terms of percentage (%C) of cracked area with respect to total lane
area or wheel path area. The estimation of percentage fatigue cracking (%C) of pavement
on a time frame considering its design life is a much needed provision the pavement
management system as well as pavement design guideline.
However, in Indian context, not much work on prediction of pavement
performance by use of percentage fatigue cracking criteria has been reported. Majhi (2003)
and Ghosh (2005) have drawn up computational schemes to find the fatigue reliability of a
design section using the Mean value First Order Second Moment Method of probabilistic
estimation. However, in their work also the fatigue cracking has not been addressed.
Keeping the above in view, in the present thesis, an attempt has been made to formulate a
computational scheme to predict the fatigue performance of pavements during their service
life. Further, to investigate the relative degree of influence of various uncertain design
parameters on estimation of fatigue a sensitivity analysis has been done as a part of this
study.
1.3. Organizing the Thesis:
The present thesis is divided into 7 chapters. Chapter 1, Introduction, discusses
the basic framework of the study including the scope and motivation of the work. Chapter 2
describes an overview of the pavement design methods with basic principals of the study.
Chapter 3 deals with the uncertainties associated with pavement engineering along with
different methods of reliability analysis. Chapter 4 depicts the concept of fatigue distress in
pavement. Chapter 5 presents a review on literature on reliability analysis of pavements.
Chapter 6 deals with probabilistic formulation of fatigue damage. Finally, Chapter 7
presents a summary on the study with conclusions and scope of further work.
CHAPTER 2.
3
METHODS OF PAVEMENT DESIGN:
AN OVERVIEW
2.1. GENERAL:
The development of flexible pavement design process started way back in
1920s. At that time, design was consisted of finding the thickness of layered materials that
would provide sufficient strength and protection to a soft, weak subgrade. Pavements were
designed against subgrade shear failure. Depending upon the experience of success and
failures of previous projects several design methods were developed based upon the
subgrade shear strength criteria. [Carvalho, 2006]
The CBR method, developed during 192829 was the first of those empirical
methods which developed after the soil classifications were first published. It involves
determination of CBR value of subgrade for the most critical moisture condition and
subsequently finding the thickness of different pavement layers from a design chart. Based
upon that design chart, in 1940 the U. S. Corps of Engineers adopted the CBR method of
design for airfield pavement which is still being used for runways in airport. During the
same time California (Hveem) Method was developed which considered the traffic load
parameters along with strength of subgrade material and other construction materials
[Chakraborty & Das, 2003]. In 1945 the HRB modified the soil classifications to categorize
the same in 7 separate groups with indexes to differentiate soil within each group. The
classifications were applied to estimate the subbase quality and total pavement thickness.
Several methods, based on subgrade shear failure criteria were developed after
the CBR method. Barber (1946) used Terzaghis bearing capacity formula to compute
pavement thickness, while McLeod in 1953, applied logarithmic spirals to determine
bearing capacity of pavement. This approach had been used in South African pavement
design method. But with the increase in traffic volume and vehicular speed, shear failure no
longer be the sole criteria of pavement design.
In 1947, Kanas State Highway Commission did structural analysis of soil by
theory of elasticity and applied Boussineqs equation to limit the vertical deflection of
subgrade upto 2.54mm. Later in 1953, the U.S. Navy applied Burimisterss twolayer
4
elastic theory and limited the surface deflection to 6.35 mm. More recently, resilient
modulus has been used to establish relationships between the strength and deflection limits
for determining thickness of new pavement structures and overlays (Preussler and Pinto,
1984). [Carvalho, 2006]
Since, design criteria have changed. As important as providing subgrade
support, it became equally important to evaluate pavement performance through riding
quality and other surface distresses that increase the rate of deterioration of pavement
structure. Performance became the focus point of pavement design. Methods, based on
serviceability were developed using test track experiments. After 1950, test tracks started to
be used for gathering more data related to performance of pavement. Regression models
were developed linking the performance data to design inputs. The AAHTO empirical
design method (AASHTO, 1993), based on the AASHO Road Tests (1960), is still the
predominating design method of pavement. The AASHTO design equation corelates the
pavement performance in terms of serviceability to repetition of traffic load & pavement
structural capacity. But, like any other empirical methods AASHTO design method is valid
only for selected material and climate condition in which they were developed.
Meanwhile, new materials started to be used in pavement structure but with
their own failure mechanism (e.g. fatigue cracking and rutting in case of asphalt concrete)
due to traffic loading and environmental effects. Kerkhoven & Dorman (1953) first
suggested the use of vertical compressive strain on top of subgrade as a failure criterion
and Sall & Pell (1960) published the use of horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of asphalt
layer to minimize fatigue cracking. The AI method (1982, 1981) and Shell method (1977,
1982) incorporated the strainbased criteria in linearelastic theory and predicted the no. of
traffic loads to failure in combination with empirical models. Later various state
organizations in USA viz. WSDOT, NCDOT, MNDOT developed their own ME
procedures. In 1990, the NCHRP 126 project report (Calibrated Mechanistic Structural
Analysis Procedures for Pavements) provided the basic framework of all these efforts by
incorporating environmental variables (e.g. asphalt concrete temperature to determine
stiffness) and cumulative damage model using Miners Law with fatigue cracking criterion.
Vary recently published NCHRP 137A (2004) project report incorporates the
traffic load estimation in terms of loadspectrum of different vehicular class, a step forward
5
from ESAL concept and gives distinct distress model for traffic load and environmental
effect. It also gives the provision of pavement performance evaluation on seasonal basis.
However, the success of ME design practice, suggested by various agencies
depends upon the following factors [Kim, 2006]:
The accuracy of the pavement structural model to obtain primary responses of the
pavement.
The accurate characterization of the material properties in the different pavement
layers.
The provision for better characterization of climate and aging effects on materials.
The accuracy of loadspectrum data for a site specific condition.
Better definition of the role of construction by identifying the parameters which are
most influential over pavement performance.
The accurate characterization of the uncertainties in preparing design inputs.
The adoption of realistic approach for performance prediction of pavement.
The appropriate selection of reliability model to treat uncertainties of the design
inputs.
However in Indian context, IRC brought out its first guideline in 1971 (IRC:
371971) for structural design of bituminous pavements, which was subsequently revised in
1984. These guidelines were based on empirical relationships, mentioned earlier. Later on
with the advancement of computational facility, available field performance data ,
analytical design approach has enabled to introduce ME design concept (shown in Fig.
2.1) in recently published guideline IRC: 37 2001. It provides a design thickness chart
from field performance and incorporating fatigue and rutting model from mechanistic
analysis.
6
Figure 2.1: Flow chart for Mechanistic Empirical Flexible Pavement Design (Carvalho
& Schwartz, 2005)
2.2. BASIC DESIGN PRICIPAL OF IRC: 372001:
In this approach, the pavement is idealized as a layered elastic structure
consisting of three to four layers made up of bituminous surfacing, base, subbase and the
subgrade. Each layer is characterized by its elastic modulus (E), Poissons ratio () and
thickness. Figure.2.1 shows a layered flexible pavement structure subjected to a set of
standard dual wheel load system on top of the surface layer. The horizontal tensile strain
(
t
) at the bottom of the bituminous layer and the vertical compressive strain (
z
) on the
subgrade are identified as the critical parameters for fatigue and rutting failures,
respectively. The concept of fatigue failure has been discussed in chapter 4. The
mechanistic pavement design consists of the selection of a thickness combination of asphalt
concrete (AC) surfacing and granular base so that
t
and
z
are limited to the predetermined
values depending upon the design life of the pavement.
Using Burmisters (1945) basic approach, Verstraeten (1967) presented explicit
equations in integral forms for evaluation of stress, strain, and displacement for a layered
7
elastic pavement subjected to a uniformly distributed vertical pressure on a circular area on
the surface of a pavement.
Some standard computer programs such as CHEVRON, BISAR, ELSYM,
EVERSTRESS, FPAVE, etc. had been developed by different organizations and
institutions for the computation of stress and strain at a given point in a multilayer
pavement structure.
8
Bituminous Surfacing
Granular base
Or
Subbase
t
z
Subgrade
Tyres
Figure 2.2: Schematic Diagram of a Layered Pavement Structure
Figure 2.3: Schematic Diagram Showing Development of Pavement Design Process
Over The Time
Boussinqs Eq
n
Terzaghis Eq
n
.
Mechanistic
Analysis
Accelerate
d Test
Tracks
Resilie
nt
Modul
us
Theory
of
Elasticit
y
Failure Criteria
Analysis Inputs
Design Approaches
9
Subgrade Shear Failure
Bearing capacity of subgrade
Vertical Deflection of subgrade
Subgrade
Strength & Deflection
Riding Quality of pavement surface
Serviceability of Pavement
Cracking Rutting Raveling Friction loss
CBR
Method
Empirical
Model
ME Design
Approach
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPT OF
RELIABILITY:
3.1. GENERAL
Reliability emerges into the frame of technical analysis due to the inherent
uncertainty in engineering solutions associated with it. Uncertainty results undesirable
performance, unsafe operation, low standard of durability of the solution system. Now all
these uncertainties approach the system in different manners.
Generally uncertainties encountered in the engineering problem may be of
three types:
(i) Natural variability associated with the inherent randomness of natural
process, manifesting as temporal variability, spatial variability or as variability over both
time & space.
(ii) Knowledge uncertainty is attributed to lack of quality data, limited
information about the event or process , or lack of understanding of physical laws which
limit our ability to model the real world i.e., statistical uncertainty. Knowledge uncertainty
is just a more common description of epistemic uncertainty.
In addition to these uncertainties, two practical types of uncertainty also enter
risk and reliability analysis. These are Operational uncertainties which include:
(A) The unpredictability of (a) loads on a structure during its life, (b) inplace
material strengths and (c) human errors.
(B) Structural idealizations in forming the mathematical model of the structure
to predict its response or behavior and
(C) The limitations in numerical methods; and
Decision uncertainties, which describe our inability to know social
acceptability, the length of a planning horizon, desirable temporal consumption
investment or the social aversion to risk.
10
The concerning uncertainties which have to deal in engineering analysis are
given in Figure.3.1.
Figure 3.1: Schematic Diagram Showing Various Types of Uncertainties
Now the reliability against all these uncertainties can be defined as the
probability of an item performing its intended function over a given period of time under
the operating conditions encountered. It is important to note that the above definition
stresses four significant elements, viz. (i) probability, (ii) intended function, (iii) time and
(iv) operating conditions. Because of the uncertainties, the reliability is a probability which
is the most important element in the definition. All uncertainties, weather they are
associated with inherent variability or with the prediction errors, may be accessed in
statistical terms, and the evaluation of their significance on engineering design
accomplished using concepts and methods that are embodied in the theory of probability.
For engineering purpose the dual concept of probability asfrequency in a long
or infinite no. of trials and probabilityasbelief objective or subjective are complements to
each other. Thus, probability is the overarching framework for grappling with the dual
nature of uncertainty: probabilityasfrequency is used to grapple with natural variations in
the world, while probabilityas belief is used to grapple with limited knowledge
11
Knowledge Uncertainty Decision Model
Uncertainty
Risk Analysis
Natural Variability
Temporal
Spatial
Model
Parameters
Time Parameters
Objectives
Values
3.2. SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH
PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCESS:
Regarding the flexible pavement, the design factors have always some sort of
uncertainty either due to the dispersion of their values or errors associated with estimation
of these factors. An example of stochasticity is the lateral wander of traffic. Since wheel
paths of different vehicles are not identical, lateral distribution of wheel path should be
considered in formulating the design traffic [Sun Le]. Uncertainties associated with key
pavement input factors and models which affect pavement performance can be grouped
into the following four categories:
1. Spatial variability that includes a real difference in the basic properties of materials
from one point to another in what are assumed to be homogeneous layers and a
fluctuation in the material and crosssectional properties due to construction
quality;
2. Variability due to the imprecision in quantifying the parameters affecting pavement
performance, i.e., random measurement error in determining the strength of
subgrade soil, and estimation of traffic volume in terms of average daily traffic;
3. Model bias due to the assumption and idealization of a complex pavement analysis
model with a simple mathematical expression;
4. Statistical error due to the lack of fit of the regression equations.
Now the first sources of uncertainties can be combined into uncertainties of
design parameters, which represent the variability from site to site and inconsistent
estimation of the parameters, and the third and fourth sources of uncertainty into systematic
errors, which consistently deviate from predicted actual pavement performance. The
uncertainties of design parameters cause the variation within the probability distribution of
the performance function, whereas systematic errors cause the variation in possible location
of probability distribution of the performance function. Therefore, design parameters
describe the scatter of the pavement properties and the variation of traffic estimation and
12
systematic errors associated with the uncertainty in the location of the trend of predicted
pavement performances.
In early research the uncertainties were curbed down by using sufficient safety
factors and arbitrary taking decision based on experience. However the use of safety
factors, with little consideration given to the uncertainty of design factors has resulted in
few failures (Hudson 1975). In order to access the effects of uncertainty comprehensively,
probabilistic concepts need to be applied in an explicit, non arbitrary way.
3.3. THEORY OF PROBABILITY
In engineering practice many random phenomena of interest are associated
with numerical outcomes; however in all phenomenons the outcomes may not be
numerical. Events of this type may also be identified numerically by artificially assigning
numerical values to each of possible alternative events. In any case, an outcome or event
may be identified through the value(s) of a function; such a function is a random variable,
which is usually denoted with a capital letter. The value (or range of values) of a random
variable then represents a distinct event; In short, a random variable is a device (cooked up
when necessary) to identify events in numerical terms.
3.3.1. Probability Distribution of a Random Variable
The rule for describing the probability measures associated with all the values
of a random variable is a Probability Distribution or Probability Law. If X is a
random variable, its probability distribution can always be described by its Cumulative
Distribution Function (CDF), which is
( ) ( ) x X P x F
X
for all x (3.1)
Here X is a discrete or a continuous random variable. If X is continuous,
probabilities are associated with intervals on the real line (since events are defined as
intervals on the real line); consequently, at a specific value of X , such as x X , only the
density of probability is defined. Thus, for a continuous random variable, the probability
 0 a b
x
13
law may also be described in terms of a Probability Density Function(PDF),so that, if
( ) x f
X
is the PDF of X ,the probability of X in the interval [a, b] is
( )dx x f b X a P
b
a
X
< ) ( (3.2)
It is to be noted that ( ) x f
X
itself does not give the probability. It is only a
measure of the density of probability at the point. Probabilities are given by integrals only.
It follows, then, that the corresponding distribution function is
( ) ( ) ( ) d f x X P x F
x
X X
(3.3)
According, if ( ) x F
X
has a first derivative, then,
( )
( )
dx
x dF
x f
X
x
( ) x f
X
is not a probability; ( ) x F
X
is the CDF of . X
However,
( ) ( ) dx x X x P dx x f
X
+ < (3.4)
( ) x f
X
is the probability that values of X will be in the interval [ ] dx x x + , .
3.4. PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS:
Probability distributions are used to describe the nature of uncertainty of a
random variable. These are derived on certain physical assumption and are the result of an
underlying physical process. However there is no. of discrete and continuous probability
function, some of them are mentioned in following section.
 0 a b
x
0
1
2
14
3.4.1. Normal (Gaussian) Distribution
Figure 3.2. Normal Density Function
( ) ( ) , N x f
X
]
]
]
]
,
`
.

2
2
1
exp
2
1
x
< < x
(3.5)
( ) dx
x
b X a P
b
a
]
]
]
]
,
`
.

<
2
2
1
exp
2
1
= ( ) ( ) a F b F
X X
(3.6)
3.4.2. The Standard Normal Distribution
Figure.3.3. Standard Normal Distribution
 0 a b
x
N ( ,)
f
X
(x)
Area= P (a<X b)
3 2 1 0 s
p
1 2 3 s
(3) (2) () () (2) (3)
N(0,1)
f
S
(s)
Probability=p
0
1
2
15
For the special case of
0
, and 0 . 1
( )
]
]
]
2
)
2
1
( exp
2
1
s s f
s
< < s
(3.7)
( )
p
s s P
Shaded area,
( ) ( )
p p s
s s F p
Special Notation:
( )
is the cumulative probability of a standard normal variate
( ) ( ) s s 1
( ) s is tabulated in normal distribution chart standard text books.
3.4.3 Lognormal Distribution
Figure 3.4. Lognormal Distribution
( )
]
]
]
]
,
`
.

2
ln
2
1
exp
2
1
x
x
x f
X
< x 0 (3.8)
Where, ( ) X E ln and ( )
X
X Var
ln
ln are, respectively, the mean and standard
derivation of X ln , and are the parameters of the distribution.
Note: As , i.e.,
X ln
decreases
Lognormal Normal
=0.1
=0.3
=0.5
0
1
2
( ) x f
X
4
2
0
16
0
M
R  S 0
M
ln(r/s)
M<0
X
It can be shown that
2
2
1
ln
2
ln
2
1
ln
X
(3.9)
&
,
`
.

+
2
2
ln
1 ln
X
(3.10)
Now, ( ) ( ) dx x f b x a P
b
a
X
<
=
dx
X
x
b
a
]
]
]
]
,
`
.

2
ln
2
1
exp
2
1
(3.11)
Let,
x
s
ln
Then , ds x dx ,and
( ) ds e b X a P
b
a
s
<
) (ln
) (ln
)
2
1
(
2
2
1
=
,
`
.

,
`
.

a b ln ln
(3.12)
Thus, probabilities associated with a lognormal variate can also be determined
using the table of standard normal probabilities.
3.5. METHODS OF RELIABILITY ANALYSIS:
3.5.1. Meanvalue First Order Second Moment (MFOSM) Method
In this method, the random variables are characterized by their first and second
moments. In evaluating the first and second moments of the failure function (i.e. say, the
mean and variance of M which is a nonlinear function of the basic variables), the first order
approximation is used. That is why these methods are called firstorder secondmoment
methods (Ranganathan 1990). In the case of nonlinear failure functions, linearization is
performed using Taylors series expansion in the reliability analysis.
17
0
M
R  S 0
M
ln(r/s)
M<0
Consider the fundamental case with only two basic variables R and S:
p
F
= P (R< S)
M = g(R, S) = R  S (3.13)
The failure surface equation is
R S = 0 (3.14)
Cornell (1969) first defined the reliability index as
M
M
(3.15)
Where,
M
and
M
are the mean value and standard deviation of M. That is, is
the reciprocal of the coefficient of variation in M. The concept of is illustrated in Figure
2.3 which shows the PDF of M for the fundamental casetwo variable problem. The safety
is defined by the condition M > 0 and therefore, failure by M < 0. The reliability index may
be thought of as the distance from the origin (M = 0) to the mean
M
measured in standard
deviation units. As such, is a measure of the probability that M will be less than zero. If
M
=
M
0 (3.16)
Then the reliability in terms of safety index is at least .
18
0
M
R  S 0
M
ln(r/s)
p
F
p
F
f
M
(m)
f
M
(m)
M=(RS)
M = ln (R/S)
M>0 M<0
M<0 M>0
M
S R M
,
`
.

S
R
M
ln
(3.19)
When both R and S are lognormal and independent, the alternative formulation
for failure is taken as
1
S
R
<
,
`
.

(3.20)
0
S
R
ln <
,
`
.

(3.21)
The failure surface equation is
19
0
S
R
ln M
,
`
.

(3.22)
Using the small variance approximations,
[ ]
,
`
.

,
`
.

S
R
M
ln
S
R
ln E
(3.23)
and
( )
2
S
2
R
2
M
S
R
ln Var +
]
]
]
,
`
.

(3.24)
So,
( )
( )
2 1 2
S
2
R
S R
ln
(3.25)
It is to be mentioned here that the reliability index () defined by Equation
(3.19) is not invariant with regard to the choice of failure function. If the failure function is
linear in nature, the point of shortest distance (from the origin) to the failure surface will be
the mean point. However, for nonlinear failure function, it is not the same. In such a
situation mean point can be an approximation of the shortest distance. Thus the computed
value of with nonlinear failure function is approximate. Level of accuracy depends on
nonlinearity of the failure curve. Thus, for highly nonlinear failure function, Hasofer and
Lind (1974) method should be used for computing which is basically solving an
optimization problem for finding the position of the point of shortest distance.
3.5.2. Second Order Second Moment method (SOSM)
This technique uses the terms in Taylor series up to the second order. The
computational difficulty is more, and the improvement in accuracy is not always worth the
extra computational effort. SOSM methods have not found wide use in engineering
application.
3.5.3. Advanced Second Moment (ASM) Method (Hasofer and Lind, 1974)
Hasofer and Lind (1974) proposed an improvement on the FOSM method
based on a geometric interpretation of the reliability index as a measure of the distance
dimensionless space between peak of the multivariate distribution of the uncertain
20
parameters and a function defining the failure condition. In this context and for the purpose
of a generalized formulation, we define a performance function, or state function,
g(X) = g( X
1
, X
2
, X
3
,., X
n
) (3.26)
where, X = ( X
1
, X
2
, X
3
,., X
n
) is a vector of basic state (or design)
variables of the system, and the function g(X) determines the performance or state of the
system.
The following steps summarize a simple numerical algorithm (Ang and Tang,
1984) (Rackwitz, 1976) he above mentioned method.
(1) Assume initial values of x
i
* ; i = 1, 2, , n and obtain
x
i
* = (x
i
* 
xi
) /
xi
(3.27)
(2) Evaluate (g / X
i
)
and
i
* at x
i
*
(3) Form x
i
* =
xi

i
*
xi
(3.28)
(4) Substitute above x
i
* in g(x
1
*, x
2
*, x
n
* ) = 0 and solve for .
(5) Using the obtained in Step 4, reevaluate x
i
* = 
i
(3.29)
(6) Repeat Steps 2 through 5 until convergence is obtained.
3.5.4. Point Estimate Methods
The variance of a function or any of its momentsis essentially the result of
integration. Rosenbleuth (1975, 1981) proposed that an accurate approximation is obtained
by evaluating the function M at a set of discrete points and using those values to compute
the desired moments. In practice, for uncorrelated variables, the points are usually taken at
plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean of each of the variables. Other
schemes can be used, especially when the variables are correlated or skewed. The method
is in a form of Gaussian quadrate (Christian and Baecher, 1999).
3.5.5. The Monte Carlo Simulation Method
21
The Monte Carlo method is a simple simulation technique. One of the usual
objectives in using the Monte Carlo technique is to estimate certain parameters and
probability distributions of random variables whose values depend on the interactions with
random variables whose probability distributions are specified. Provided highspeed digital
computing facilities are available, a simple Monte Carlo technique can often be useful in
obtaining the distribution F
R
(r). Let R be a function of n independent random variables Y
i
.
) Y ..., ,......... Y , Y ( g R
n 2 1
(3.30)
The technique consists of three steps:
1) Generating a set of values y
ik
for the material properties and geometric parameters Y
i
in
accordance with the empirically determined or assumed density functions f
Yi
. The suffix
i is used to denote the i th variable and suffix k is used to represent the kth set of values
(y
1k
, y
2k
,, y
ik
,, y
nk
) of the corresponding variables
) Y ,........, Y ,...., Y , Y (
n i 2 1
.
2) Calculating the value r
k
corresponding to the set of values y
ik
obtained in step 1, by
means of the appropriate response equation for resistance of the section. That is
) y , , y , , y , (y g r
nk ik 2k 1k k
(3.31)
3) Repeating steps 1 and 2 to obtain a large sample of the values of R and therefore,
estimating F
R
(r).
This method can also be used to obtain distributions for M and Z where,
S R M (3.32)
S
R
Z (3.33)
Here, R is the resistance and S is the action. It is then only necessary to
obtain additional sample values for S in accordance with the density function f
S
and to
combine the equation for resistance with Equation 3.32 or Equation 3.33 to provide the
direct means of calculating the means of M or Z.
CHAPTER 4.
FATIGUE CRACKING:
22
4.1. GENERAL:
Fatigue is a mode of failure under a repeated or varying load, never reaching a
high enough level to cause failure in a single application. The fatigue process embraces two
basic domains of cyclic stressing or straining, differing distinctly in character.
Lowcycle fatigue  where significant plastic straining occurs. Lowcycle
fatigue involves large cycles with significant amounts of plastic deformation and relatively
short life. The analytical procedure used to address straincontrolled fatigue is commonly
referred to as the StrainLife, CrackInitiation, or Critical Location approach.
Highcycle fatigue where stresses and strains are largely confined to the
elastic region. Highcycle fatigue is associated with low loads and long life. The Stress
Life (SN) or Total Life method is widely used for highcycle fatigue applications. While
lowcycle fatigue is typically associated with fatigue life between 10 to 100,000 cycles,
highcycle fatigue is associated with fatigue life greater than 100,000 cycles.
23
Figure 4.1. Different Types of Cyclic Stress Responsible for Fatigue Cracking.
Regarding pavement this fatigue strain has been defined by IRC as: Horizontal
tensile strain at the bottom of the bituminous layer. Large tensile strains cause fracture of
the bituminous layer during the design life. [IRC: 372001, 3.2.2(ii)] This fracture of the
bituminous layer is termed as Fatigue Cracking.
4.2. FATIGUE MECHANISM:
Fatigue cracking is a mechanism of failure results from cyclic stresses. The
name fatigue is based on the concept that a material becomes tired and fails at a stress
24
level below the nominal strength of the material. It involves initiation and growth of a
crack under applied stress which may be well within the static capacity of the material.
Discontinuities such as changes in section or material flaws are favored sites for fatigue
initiation. During subsequent propagation, the crack grows in microscopic amount with
each load cycle. The crack soformed often remains tightly closed, and thus difficult to find
by visual inspection during the majority of the life. If cracking remains undiscovered, there
is a risk that it may spread across a significant portion of the loadbearing cross section,
leading to final separation by fracture of the remaining ligament. Hence fatigue occurs in
three stages crack initiation; slow, stable crack growth; and lastly rapid fracture causing
fatigue failure.
The development of fatigue cracking regarding pavement can be expressed as
three stage process  a) initiation of hairline cracking at the bottom of bituminous layer, (b)
widening of the crack and formation of crack network; and (c) formation of visible cracks.
But under certain conditions the cracks may originate at other locations like from the top of
the bituminous layer or within the layer. For a specific experiment, it has been shown that
the number of load repetitions required to reach stage (b) is about 4 times larger than that
required to reach stage (a), whereas the number of load repetitions necessary to reach stage
(c) is more than 20 times larger than that required to reach stage (a).
Fatigue distress is also analyzed by a mechanistic parameter called damage
index. But for field estimation of fatigue distress, percentage cracking is a more effective
parameter. Percentage cracking is defined as the ratio of cracked area to the total lane area.
4.3. TYPES OF FATIGUE CRACKING:
More detailed definition of the different fatigue cracking is given below.
4.3.1. Bottomup Fatigue Cracking or Alligator Cracking:
This type of fatigue cracking first shows up as short longitudinal cracks in the
wheel path that quickly spread and interconnected to form a chicken wire/alligator cracking
pattern these cracks initiate at the bottom of the bituminous layer and propagate to the
surface under repeated load applications. These cracks are the result of repeated bending of
the pavement layer under traffic load and are measured by the ratio of the cracked area to
the total lane area. Following are the some of the reasons of alligator cracking:
25
Relatively thin bituminous layer for the magnitude and repetition of the traffic load.
Higher wheel loads and higher tyre pressure.
Soft spots or areas in unbound aggregate base materials or in the subgrade soil.
Weak aggregate base/subbase layers caused by inadequate compaction or increase
in moisture content or presence of extremely high ground water table (GWT).
Figure 4.2. Schematic Diagram of BottomUp Fatigue Cracking.
Figure 4.2.1. Low Cracking Zone Figure .4.2.2. Moderate Cracking Zone
Figure 4.2.3. High Cracking Zone
26
4.3.2. Surface Down Fatigue cracking or Longitudinal Cracking:
In few cases load initiated cracks do occur on top and propagate downward.
This type of cracking is measured by the length of crack per km of road stretch. One of the
suggested mechanisms of surfacedown fatigue cracking is:
High stiffness near the top surface due to severe aging of the bituminous layer and
the high tire contact pressure near the edge of tyre cause crack initiation and crack
propagation. This occurs due to the shearing of the surface mixture.
Figure 4.3 Schematic Diagram of Longitudinal Cracking
Figure 4.3.1. Longitudinal Cracking at Figure 4.3.2. Longitudinal Cracking at
Wheel Path NonWheel Path
4.3.3. Thermal Fatigue Cracking:
Cracking in flexible pavements due to cold temperature or temperature cycling
is commonly refereed to as thermal cracks. Thermal cracks typically appear as transverse
cracks on the pavement, surface roughly perpendicular to the pavement centerline. These
27
cracks can be caused by the shrinkage of the asphalt surface due to low temperatures,
hardening of the asphalt or daily temperature cycles.
Thermal fatigue cracking has twodifferent patterns viz. transverse cracking
and block cracking. Transverse cracks usually occur first and are followed by the
occurrence of block cracking as the asphalt ages and becomes more brittle with time.
Transverse cracking is usually predicted by design models whereas block cracking is
handled by material and construction variables.
Figure 4.4.1. Low Thermal Cracking Figure 4.4.2. Transverse Cracking
Figure 4.4.3. Block Cracking
4.4. CONCEPT OF FATIGUE LIFE
Generally 50% reduction of the initial stiffness of the asphalt beam under strain
controlled test is considered as fatigue failure and the no. of load repetition required for
28
that is commonly termed as fatigue life. Here strain controlled test has been adopted due to
the consideration that crack initiation in asphalt mixes is mainly dependent on the
magnitude of the applied strain for a controlled strain testing. But as per IRC: guidelines
pavement having 20% of fatigue cracking are considered to be failed. The number of
traffic load repetition required to reach this predefined magnitude of fatigue cracking for a
pavement is termed as the fatigue life (N
f
) of the pavement. It is actually the no. of load
repetition required to initiate the micro cracks in the surface layer.
The mathematical model for finding N
f
is given below.
3 2
1
1 1
k k
f
,
`
.

,
`
.

(4.1)
= tensile strain
I = initial mix stiffness.
k
1,
k
2,
k
3
= experimentally determined coefficients.
Crackpropagation is controlled by two different modes: ModeI: Opening of
initiated crack, ModeII: Shearing of the crack tip. Due to ModeI the crack only open up
to a certain length (about half to twothirds of the AC layer) and resist crack propagation
when crack approaches the top of the layer. Whereas ModeII contribute crack propagation
through the entire thickness of the AC layer. Therefore a combination of these and of a
mixed mode would be more appropriate to describe the crack propagation. Fatigue damage
growth under the tire wall due to the shear stress is also an important factor.
The different influencing factors of fatigue life (N
f
) are as follows:
Thickness of bituminous layer, base layer.
Elastic modulus of subgrade, base layer, bituminous surface.
Average daily traffic, traffic growth rate.
Vehicle damage factor, lane distribution factor, tire contact pressure.
29
CHAPTER 5.
LITERATURE REVIEW
5.1. GENERALl
Substantial research work has been done to analyze the variability and
uncertainty associated with pavement design process to estimate their effects on the design
process. Lemer and Moavenzadeh (1971), and Darter and Hudson (1973) were among the
first to introduce the reliability concept to pavement design and management.[022_Sun]
Later on various researchers has use the probabilistic approach to strengthen the design
process in different aspect. Here few of these research works have discussed briefly under
following subheadings:
30
5.2. APPLICATION OF RELIABILITY ANALYSIS TO
ESTIMATE THE VARIATION OF DESIGN
PARAMETERS:
Lemer and Moavenzadeh (1971) developed one of the first models dealing
with reliability of pavements. Lemer attempted to apply the Monte Carlo Simulation
method to a complex pavement design process for FHWA, USA. Computation time
required for the simulation proved to be excessive and impractical for practical application.
On the other hand Darter and Hudson (1973) consider two major factors viz. Traffic effects
and Environmental effects for the cause of loss of serviceability or failure of pavement.
Darter defined reliability parameter R, mathematically as,
R = P [N
t
> N
T
]
where, N
t
=No. of 18 kip ESAL withstand by the section before serviceability reaches
limiting value. N
T
= No. of 18 kip. ESAL loading applied to the pavement during its service
life. VESYS model developed by Kennis (1977) uses the same concept to estimate
reliability in terms of serviceability index as follows:
R = P [p
f
> p
t
]
Where, p
f
= present serviceability index at time t ; p
t
= terminal serviceability index.
George et al (1988) computed the reliability of continuously reinforced
concrete pavement calculating p
f
at a specified time and comparing that
p
t.
RAPPI the
developed computation model estimates pavement reliability as well as expected life. Here
p
f
and p
t
are assumed to be normally distributed with known mean and standard deviation
and reliability, R can be estimated using the following equation:
( )
) (
0
2 2
z R
pt pf
pt pf
]
]
]
]
Where,
pf ,
pt
 standard deviation of p
f
,
p
t
, z
0
standard normal variate.
Killingsworth and Zollinger(1995) carried out sensitivity analysis of input
parameters for pavement design and reliability which indicates that with low traffic and a
weak subgrade, the flexible pavement design is moderately sensitive to changes in
31
subgrade modulus, allowable traffic, and surface modulus; however, it is much less
sensitive to changes in surface thickness. But, Portland cement concrete pavements are not
sensitive to subgrade modulus and allowable traffic, but are sensitive to the input surface
thickness, and less sensitive to PCC surface modulus. At high traffic and a moderately
strong subgrade, the flexible pavement shows the opposite trend. Whereas, the analysis of
the PCC design for higher traffic indicates that all design parameters are somewhat
sensitive to variations in their design values.
Kenis and Wang (1997) used reliability concept to examine the effect of the
variation of selected variables on pavement performance based on information obtained
from the accelerated loading test. The most important aspect of their research was to
distinguish between the developments of pavement distress resulting from initial variations
in material properties/layer thickness and from variations in the dynamic wheel forces
imposed on the pavement due to tiresuspension dynamics. The analysis shows that initial
structural profile has little influence on final profile of pavement regardless the type of
suspension. The reliability analysis revealed that: a) Reducing pavement structural
variability will increase the reliability of pavements serviceable life; and b) That for a
given pavement, decreasing dynamic wheel force will increase pavement reliability if all
other variables are kept unchanged; hence to increase pavement reliability, a thicker or
stiffer pavement is required for higher dynamic wheel forces. Jiang et al. (2003) have done
the analysis of variability of insitu pavement layer thickness. Two types of variability:
spatial variability within the section and the extent of the deviations between the as
designed thickness and asconstructed thickness are considered. Regarding the spatial
variation in layer thicknesses following observation were found:
Thickness variations within a layer indicate a normal distribution based on
combined test for skew ness and kurtosis for the majority of pavement layer (86%
of 1034 layers studied) in the LTPP program.
Actual mean thicknesses are within 0.5 in. (12.7 mm) for 74% of the layer and
within 1 in. (25.4) for 92% of the layers.
For the same layer and material type, the mean constructed layer thickness tends to
be above the designed value for the thinner layers and below the design value for
the thicker layers.
32
The mean constructed layer thickness for PCC layers and LC based layers are
generally above the designed value.
This result help to estimate the in situ variability of pavement thickness resulting
from construction and the extent of mean thickness deviation from the design values both
being vary accountable for reliability based Mechanistic Empirical design of pavement.
Timm et al. (2005) has proposed mixed distribution for traffic load spectra
consist of lognormal and normal distribution for a site specific condition based on WIM
data. The proposed model works satisfactorily in characterizing both single and tandem
axle load distribution, as evident by the high R
2
values.
5.3. APPLICATION OF PROBABILISTIC APPROACH TO
CBR EQUATION OF PAVEMENT DESIGN:
Potter (1987) developed a probabilistic approach, providing more reliable
designs at potentially lower costs, from the current design procedure if the reliability of the
CBR curve is known. His study was undertaken to establish the reliability of the current
CBRbased flexible pavement design model using existing data from accelerated traffic
tests. He defined reliability of the CBR equation as the probability that the actual test
section thickness (t) is less than the design thickness (t
CBR
). That is,
Reliability = Probability
( )
CBR
t t
Then, assuming a normal distribution for the ratio of the thickness, the reliability of the
design model was found to be about 50 percent, excluding the difference between the
performance of the accelerated traffic test section, long term performance of actual in
service pavements and effects of conservative estimates of design parameters.
Bourdeau (1990) accessed the reliability of the pavement section by
considering the Shook and Finn design equation as a function of two random variables
the expected no. of traffic load and the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the sub grade
soil. The formulation is a second order, second moment development of this equation. A
sensitivity analysis indicates that the CBR variability has large effect on the pavement
reliability. The uncertainty of the expected traffic loads has little influence on the reliability
33
for a large no. of axle load. Secondly an analytical model has developed for the coefficient
of equivalence of the (unbound) granular materials of the base and sub base courses, using
the theory of stochastic stress propagation in particular media. These
coefficient reflect the ability of the granular course to spread the applied load in a
diffusion process. They are expressed as functions of angel of internal friction () of the
material and a modified formulation is derived for the equivalent thickness of the pavement
and can be integrated in reliability based model.
In order to get better statistical analysis Divinsky et al. (1996) has simplified
the conventional CBR equation (both for CBR/ p
e
< 0.22 and CBR/ p
e
> 0.22) based upon
the analysis for three different categories of wheel load conFigureuration Single assembly,
Twin tandem assembly and 12wheel assembly. It has been found the weighting factor for
A is vary much less (about 0.01 compared with 0.34 for CBR), therefore dropped from the
generalized CBR equation of following form.
t
g
=
m.
(
CBR
L
)
0.594
(5.19)
t
g
 design thickness ,
m
 Load conFigureuration factor ,L assembly load , p
e
tire
pressure. A Area of contact area between tire and pavement.
It has been found from the analysis that the difference between field thickness
and empirical thickness obey the pattern of normal distribution curve. Later Divinsky et al.
(1998) has done the supplementary analysis of previously developed generalized CBR
equation in order to estimate the thickness design of flexible pavements at a given
probability level. They compared the generalized CBR equation with the conventional
airport design method (FAA1995) which includes an additional analysis of the generalized
CBR equation in order to verify the equation parameters, to determine the confidence
intervals of the model transformation, and to approximate the constructed confidence limits
for the original form of the generalized CBR equation. They have estimated the values of a
and b for different level of design reliability for the following equation:
t
g
= a [g
m
.L. (log C)/ CBR]
b
(5.2)
Reliability Level Parameter a Parameter b
0.99 4.73 0.599
0.95 4.31 0.597
34
0.90 4.11 0.596
[C no. of coverage of the design life, g
m
function of no. of wheel]
5.4. RELIABILITY CONCEPT IN AASHTO DESIGN
EQUATION
To access the variation of pavement thickness as a function of different design
factors viz. traffic and soil support value (SSV) Basma et al. (1989) applied a linear first
order approximation on AASHTO design equation. It had been found that deterministic
traffic prediction for various highvolume freeways in US shows poor corelation with
actual field traffic. It is one of the reasons behind the failure of pavement, designed by
conventional AASHTO methods within the 812 years instead of 20 years of design life.
Where as the soil support value also varies spatially and temporally. A nomographic
solution incorporation with leastcost concept has been prepared for giving design
thickness for a given reliability and viceversa to curbdown the over design aspect in
case of high reliability.
Based upon the stipulation made by Darter et al(1995)., the pavement design
equation of AASHTO (1993) was formulated as:
(5.3)
where, W
18
= predicted number of 18 kip equivalent single axle load repetition; Z
R
=
standard normal deviate corresponding to reliability level R; S
0
= combined standard error
due to traffic prediction and performance prediction; PSI= difference between the initial
design serviceability index, p
0
and the design terminal serviceability index, p
t
; M
R
=
resilient modulus (psi); SN = structural number required for the total pavement thickness.
This formulation has made it possible to design pavements with a given reliability R, and
nomographs for design can be seen in the AASHTO Guide (1993). But one drawback of
35
( ) ( )
( )
( ) 07 . 8 M log 32 . 2
1 SN
1094
4 . 0
5 . 1 2 . 4
PSI
log
20 . 0 1 SN log 36 . 9 S Z W log
R 10
19 . 5
10
10 0 R 18 10
+
+
+
,
`
.

+ + +
this model is that the design equation considers the total variance (attributable to all design
parameters) in the form of a correction factor, S
0
. To what extent a single feature variation
affects the reliability/performance of pavement cannot, therefore, be investigated using the
AASHTO model.
Using the following equation from above AASHTO design model of flexible
pavement Noureldin et al. (1996) experiments were done on actual pavement section to
find the safety factors in reliabilitybased design in Saudi Arabia.
SF=10
Zr.So
(5.4)
Z
r =
standard normal deviate for any selected reliability level.
So
= combined standard deviation of both pavement performance and traffic predictions.
Variation of different pavement performance factors viz. layer modulus of
different pavement layer , traffic parameters , climate factors , design failure criteria were
found out based on experiments incorporating with AASHTO guidelines. But it has been
found that the values of S
N
and S
0
exhibited larger variability in case of thinner
pavement than thicker pavement , whereas AASHTO guides recommends a specific range
of values S
N
, S
0
and S
w
regardless of the total pavement thickness. Moreover the safety
factor found out has a larger value than the recommended by the AASHTO guide.
For design of roads having low volume traffic in Kerala Joseph et al. (2004)
has prepared a design chart for a local soil having CBR 7 .The reliability aspect of the
design has been estimated based upon AASHTO design equation. They found a correlation
between the total pavement thickness and the cumulative equivalent standard axles for a
particular reliability level. For lesser traffic intensities the pavement thickness doubles as
the reliability level is increased from 50 to 95 %. For higher traffic intensities the pavement
thickness increases 1.5 times as reliability level is increased from 50 to 95%.
Hong & Wang (2004) has developed a probabilistic performance prediction
model for flexible pavement based on nonhomogenous continuous Markov chain process.
The model has been applied in conjunction with the pavement deterioration model
suggested by OPAC and AASHTO. For both the case the proposed approach has been able
to mimic the degradation process with respect to the corresponding guidelines.
Prozzi et al. (2005) has done the reliability analysis on current AASHTO
EMPERICAL DESIGN METHODS and forthcoming MECHANISTIC DESIGN
36
METHODS in order to find the design reliability and also to reduce the uncertainty in
pavement performance prediction estimation. They pointed out that the two parameter that
influence the pavement performance significantly are the surface asphalt thickness and the
model error. This supports the idea that the most simulation approaches that do not account
for model error are ignoring an important component of the overall performance
variability. Their analysis, based upon a nonlinear model shows the actual reliability of a
pavement is far better than implied design reliability of the AASHTO method. This
discrepancy is attributed to the more accurate performance behavior of the model in
conjunction with a more accurate traffic characterization by use of axle load spectra instead
of ESAL data.
In order to get better reliability based design solution Zhang and
Damnjanovic (2006) has applied Method of Moments using following limit state function
considering fatigue failure criteria:
G (X, t) = Strength stress (t)
Using AASHTO design equation mentioned earlier (Eq.5.3) Second Moment
(2M), Third Moment (3M) and Fourth Moment (4M) of reliability index with
corresponding failure probability has been found out. Assuming the random variables as
independent to each other with normally distributed values the analysis shows that Second
Moment (2M) of predicts lowest failure probabilities whereas Third Moment (3M) of
predicts highest failure probabilities within 5 years of construction of pavement. A
comparative study between the Method of Moments and Monte Carlo Simulation indicates
that the Fourth Moment (4M) method yields the accurate prediction of failure probability;
in general the quality of estimation improves as the order of moments increase. The
sensitivity analysis shows that SN (Structural Number) variation has a significant on
reliability; hence it is suggested to implement stricter quality control than to design a
pavement with a higher level of capacity.
5.5. INCORPORATION OF RELIABILITY ANALYSIS IN ME
DESIGN APPROACH
37
Timm et al. (2000) incorporated reliability analysis into the Mechanistic
Empirical (ME) design procedure for Minnesota Department of Transportation, USA.
They used the definition of reliability proposed by Kulkarni (1994) which is given by
[ ] n N y probabilit R > (5.5)
where, N is the number of allowable traffic loads, and n is the actual number of applied
traffic loads. Monte Carlo simulation was chosen for reliability analysis and was
incorporated into a computer pavement design tool, ROADENT. Sensitivity analysis
conducted by using the data collected from the Minnesota Road Research Project and the
literature showed that the traffic weight variability exerts the largest influence on predicted
performance variability. It also established a minimum number (5000) of Monte Carlo
cycles for design and characterized the predicted pavement performance distribution by an
extreme value Type I function. Finally, a comparative analyses studied between
ROADENT, the 1993 AASHTO pavement design guide, and the existing Minnesota design
methods showed the ROADENT produced comparable designs for rutting performance but
somewhat conservative for fatigue cracking.
Kim and Buch (2003) has given the priority to the selection of an appropriate
reliability assessment technique and careful characterization of design input variability for
probabilistic estimation of pavement performance and determination of the reliability
based safety factor of the pavement design procedure. In addition, a reliability analysis
model for pavement design using Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) format were
introduced.They defined pavement design reliability in terms of rut depth as
predict max rut
RD RD SM
(5.6)
Where, SM
rut
= safety margin between maximum allowable and predicted rutdepth; RD
max
= maximum allowable rut depth in the design period, and RD
predict
= predicted rut depth in
the design. To quantify the systematic errors of the design procedure, a professional factor
concept, defined as a representative ratio has been introduced. The professional factor, P,
reflects uncertainties of the assumptions and simplifications used in design models. These
uncertainties could be the result of using approximations for theoretically exact formulas.
When this suggested reliability model be applied to design the pavement with rutting
38
failure criterion, the limitstate function of the model incorporating the professional factor
can be expressed as follows:
predict max rut
RD P RD SM
(5.7)
Where,
predict
measure
RD
RD
P
RD
measure
= Measured RutDepth, RD
predict
= Predicted Rut Depth by the Transfer Function.
Carvalho & Schwartz (2006) has done comparative study between the
applicability of 1993 AASHTO Guide guideline of pavement design and NCHRP 137A
mechanisticempirical approach. The analysis results suggest that relative to the NCHRP 1
37A predicted performance 1993 AASHTO Guide overestimates the performance (i.e.,
underestimates distress) for pavements in warm condition as well as for pavements
designed for high traffic volume. It has been also that rutting and fatigue cracking
performances predicted by NCHRP 137A are relatively insensitive to the reliability
level.
5.6. PROBABILISTIC ESTIMATION OF PAVEMENT
PERFORMANCE MODEL:
For the prediction of fatigue performance Long Fenella et al. (1996) has
conducted HVS tests (fatigue beam test) on two different test specimen of asphalt concrete
pavement one with conventional AC pavement structure and the other one with drained
asphalt concrete structure. Four different performance model viz. SHRP Laboratory
Testing method, SHRP Surrogate Model, AI model and Shell Model were evaluated. In all
cases the SHRP Surrogate Model gives the longest fatigue life prediction which is 525
times the AI model whereas Shell model predict the shortest fatigue life. Undrained
pavement appears to be more susceptible to changes in the modulus of all pavement layers
than the drain pavement. A relative damage factor n = 2.5 is evaluated for different values
of load.
39
During the same time Ayres et al. (1998) has done several analysis to develop
distress model like fatigue cracking , permanent deformation and low temperature
cracking based upon rational mechanistic approach and includes the fundamental concept
of probability that is inherent to the variables affecting the performance such as material
properties, test procedure and construction techniques. Here the major input random
variables are taken regarding environmental conditions, traffic characteristics and material
properties and pavement geometry.
Prozzi & Madanat (2004) has developed a pavement performance model in
terms of roughness quality of the pavement, using ordinary least square method (OLS) and
random effects (RE) approach. They use AASHO Road Test (1962) data along with field
data collected from inservice pavement in Minnesota (USA). The standard error of the
OLS regression is quite less than the original linear model of serviceability developed by
AASHO. Secondly, a joint estimation model combining inservice data and test data along
with the variability of the parameters is considered to modify the roughness model.
According to the estimated model, the rate at which roughness increases is dependent on
the gradient of frost penetration along with cumulative traffic and asphalt thickness of
pavement. With the increase of cumulative traffic the rate of roughness decreases.
Ghosh et al. (2005) developed a computer program FPAVEDET for building
up a flexible pavement design chart based on MechanisticEmpirical approach as per IRC:
37 2001 for a given set of basic input parameter like CBR value , traffic load (in MSA)
and average annual temperature (AAPT) . By use of this chart design thickness of granular
sub base and bituminous surface can be selected depending upon various safety levels
against fatigue and rutting. Alternatively a given flexible pavement section can be checked
for its safety status with respect to the allowable fatigue and rutting strains. In a particular
case, a pavement section which is over safe from rutting & fatigue by deterministic
analysis is found to have probability of failure of 15.46 % and 16.59% with respect to
fatigue and rutting analysis.
5.7. PROBABILISTIC ESTIMATION OF FATIGUE DISTRESS
40
Fatigue distress is usually controlled by the maximum tensile stress at the
bottom of the bituminous layer. a number of predictive model has been developed to
characterize the traffic load induced fatigue cracking. In general predictive models relate
the no. of load repetitions to a certain response of pavement structure. Other approaches for
predicting fatigue cracking involve establishing an empirical regression equation for
cracking directly. The fatigue cracking prediction model suggested by Jackson et al.
(1996) for South Dakota Department of Transportation is in the form of following
equation,
Fatigue cracking Index = 100 0.11726.AGE
2.2
(5.8)
The Fatigue Cracking Index ranges from 0 to 100, depending on the current age
of pavement and is determined by expert opinion and regression analysis.
Aliand and Tayabji (1998) studied no. of regression model based on field data
to predict fatigue cracking. They correlated damage ratio with percentage cracking using
growth curves. It is found that percentage cracking increases slightly , usually far less than
20%, before the damage index reaches 1, then goes up very quickly when damage index
approaches 10 or more, tends to be stationary at a level of 78%. An obstacle imposed by
this method is the requirement for field observation of percentage cracking on seasonal
basis. In most cases, field data are not readily available if one wants to predict fatigue
cracks rather than to evaluate them.
AbuLebedh et al. (2003) has developed performance models based on
autoregression for various types of Freeway and Nonfreeway pavements in Michigan
(USA). Here, surface distresses are evaluated by Distress Index (DI) parameter on 050
scale at a certain age of pavement. The model, shown below includes pavement age as one
of the input parameters.
Predicted DI (Present) = K x DI (2 year before) + M x Age (2 year before) + C
where, values of K, M, and C for several types of pavement are given below,
K  1.02 to 1.49, M 0.05 to 0.25, C 0.63 to 3.8
This model is capable of find the pavement age when DI value reaches 50 and
at that age of service life rehabilitation is recommended.
41
42
43
44
CHAPTER 6.
FORMULATION OF FATIGUE DAMAGE
6.1. GENERAL
The most primitive form of damage concept in pavement design was used by
AASHO design model. The model estimates pavement deterioration based on the definition
of a dimensionless parameter g referred to as damage. The damage parameter was defined
as the loss in the value of serviceability index at any given time t.
f
t o
t
p p
p p
g
0
(6.1)
where, g
t
= dimensionless damage parameter, p
t
= serviceability at time t,
p
0
= initial serviceability at time t, pf = terminal serviceability.
But with the changes of design approaches the concept of damage has been
modified. For ME design approach separate damage criteria are evaluated based upon
different types of pavement distresses. For the present study, different mathematical
models associated with fatigue damage are analyzed.
6.2. ANALYSIS OF FATIGUE MODEL:
Generally, cracking in flexible pavements can be classified into three categories
(1) traffic loading cracking; (2) low temperature cracking; and (3) thermal fatigue cracking.
Many flexible pavement design methods consider traffic load induced fatigue cracking as a
major design criterion. Traffic load induced cracks are generally surfacedown cracking. A
number of predictive models of fatigue cracking have been developed over the past three
decades to characterize the traffic load induced fatigue cracking. These models relate the
fatigue life (in terms of the number of load repetitions) to the tensile strain at the bottom of
the bituminous layer. A universal form of the fatigue law used to predict fatigue life of
flexible pavements (Finn 1973; Finn et al. 1973, 1977) is given below
N = k
1
t
k2
E
1
k3
(6.2)
Where, = maximum tensile strain at the bottom of the bituminous layer.
45
E= elastic modulus of the bituminous layer
k
i
= parameters of fatigue law.
N = total no. of load repetitions to failure.
The coefficients k
2
and k
3
are calibrated through beamtype fatigue testing. A
number of significant differences exist between laboratory fatigue testing and field
observations. Due to these differences the laboratory fatigue life of a bituminous material is
usually lower than that observed in the field. Laboratory fatigue life therefore must be
adjusted by a shift factor to obtain the field fatigue life such that appropriate design criteria
can be developed. This process may be considered as the modification of the laboratory
result by the field calibrated fatigue and is reflected by the coefficient k
1
of the above
mentioned equation.
Various major institutes have done research work on the fatigue law to
accommodate it with respect to their local conditions and hence provided different values
of k
1
,
k
2
and k
3
as shown in Table 6.1, as obtained from Sun et al. (2003).
Table 6.1: Values of k
i
for Different Fatigue Model
Models k
1
k
2
k
3
AI Model 0.0796 3.291 0.854
Shell Model 0.0685 5.671 2.363
UC Barkley Model 0.636 3.291 0..854
Illinois Model 5x10
6
3 0
Minnesota Model 2.83 x 10
6
3.21 0
Indian Model
(IRC 37: 2001)
2.21x10
4
3.89 0.854
6.3. ESTIMATION OF FATIGUE DAMAGE:
For the present study, fatigue damage due to traffic load has been estimated
by two different mathematical approaches viz.
(i) Computation of fatigue damage in terms of Damage Ratio (D
f
) and
(ii) Computation of fatigue damage by Percentage Cracking (%C).
For the first one Eq.5.2 has been used considering the mean and variations of
required design input parameters, whereas, for the last one probabilistic estimation of
critical damage ratio has been done using FOSM method. A computational program has
been developed with FORTRAN code for both the cases.
46
6.3.1. Concept of Fatigue Damage Ratio (D
f
):
Now the fatigue transfer function indicate that the allowable number of
applications of any axle load/combination is a function of the strain (horizontal tensile
strain at the bottom of the AC layer) caused by the load application. Hence pavements are
designed to allow a specific no. of load repetitions depending upon its layer characteristics
before fatigue cracking failure occurs. But in the field, it has been found that actual no. of
repetitions which causes crack initiation may be less or more than the design repetitions.
With the increase of actual no. of repetitions, hairline cracks will propagate to form
widespread network of visible cracks. Now, to relate the percentage fatigue cracking with
load repetitions, concept of damage ratio (D
f
) had been introduced according to Miners
Law of cumulative damage. The general form of the Miners law is
n
i i
i
f
N
X
D
1
(6.3)
Where, D
f
= damage ratio,
X
i
= actual no. of load repetition during period i,
N
i
= allowable no. of load repetition during period i.
From the Eq. (5.2) it is evident that with the increase of i, the value of damage
ratio will be accumulated and hence will increase for i from 1 to n. Therefore, to make
simple the application of Miners Law in fatigue damage analysis of pavement it is better
to break up the entire design life of pavement into the number of analysis periods. This
division of design life can be done on the basis of different level of tensile strain or on the
basis of a few analysis periods of equal duration. But if the design life is broken up on the
basis of strain level it would not be convenient to estimate the fatigue damage to use it in
pavement management system as per desired way. On the other hand some periodical
estimation of fatigue damage would be handful for the pavement management. For the
present study, 15 years of design life has been divided into 5 analysis periods of 3 years
equal duration, hence the value of i ranges from 1 to 5.
Depending upon the value of initial tensile strain under the bituminous surface
at the starting of each analysis period viz. i=1, 2,, 5, there will be separate values of
fatigue life for each analysis period. Now, from the stiffness vs. load repetition curve, the
47
stiffness of bituminous binder will reduce with the increase in load repetition following a
certain parametric equation (which is discussed in Annexure: 1)  hence as the stiffness of
bituminous surface will decrease with subsequent analysis period i, the value of initial
tensile value will increase accordingly which in turn will decrease the value of fatigue life
subsequently. On the other hand design traffic will increase as per traffic growth rate for
subsequent analysis period. Hence it is clear that the values of D
i
(i.e., X
i
/N
i
) will
increase for successive analysis periods and accordingly the amount of fatigue damage as
well as percentage fatigue cracking (%C) will increase for successive analysis periods.
Until and unless the value of accumulated damage ratio reach the critical value (i.e., 1), the
pavement section will be on the safe side considering fatigue damage.
6.3.2. Computation of Damage Ratio (D
f
):
From the Eq. 5.2. it is evident that estimation of fatigue life as well as traffic
load are vary much necessary for computation of D
f
. Now for the probabilistic estimation
of D
f
all the design inputs of fatigue life and traffic load have been estimated separately
with proper mathematical equations. These have been discussed in following sections.
6.3.2.1. Estimation of Fatigue Life
Significant experimental evidences, presented in the literature indicate that the
distribution of fatigue lives at a particular stress level is lognormal. Hence the Eq.6.1. has
been converted to logarithmic scale to give the following expression
1 3 2 1
ln ln ln ln E k k k N
t i
(6.4)
Hence the mean and variance of N would be given by
E N
i
= exp [
N
+
N
2
/ 2] (6.5)
VAR N
i
= exp [2(
N
+
N
2
)]  exp [2
N
+
N
2
] (6.6)
Here,
1 3 2 1
ln ln ln E k k k
t N
(6.7)
N
=
total variance of the fatigue model. The expression of
N
has been given by
equation 5.10.
48
Now it is evident that N
i
is a function of
t
, E
1
,
k
1
,
k
2
and k
3
.The fatigue tensile
strain (
t
) at the bottom of bituminous surface is depend upon the elastic modulus,
Poissons ratios , thickness of different layers , the wheel spacing and tire contact pressure .
Thus,
( )
p s 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 t
t , w , h , h , , , , E , E , E f
(6.8)
Where,
E
1
= Elastic modulus of bituminous surface layer
E
2
= Elastic modulus of granular base layer
E
3
= Elastic modulus of subgrade
1
= Poissons ratio of bituminous surface layer
2
= Poissons ratio of granular base layer
3
= Poissons ratio of subgrade
h
1
= Thickness of bituminous surface layer
h
2
= Thickness of granular base layer
w
s
= Wheel spacing
t
p
= Tyre contact pressure of vehicle
t
= Maximum tensile strain at the bottom of bituminous layer
It follows, therefore
) , , , , , , , , , , , , (
3 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 f f f p s f
k k k t w h h E E E f N
(6.9)
Here, in the fatigue performance analysis, all the variables except k
3
have been
treated as random variables. The fatigue equation (eq.6.1) is calibrated from field
performance study and hence, it has some inherent variability. For that reason the
regression coefficients k
1
and k
2
have been included in the set of random variables. Only
these two variables are chosen because they govern the intercept and slope of the fatigue
equation. It is accepted that the variation of other coefficient k
3
will not significantly
influence the result. Hence the vector of the random variables is therefore given by
N [ ]
T
f 2 f 1 p s 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1
r , F , D , k , k , t , w , h , h , , , , E , E , E (6.10)
49
All of the random variables are assumed to be normally distributed and
mutually independent i.e. uncorrelated.
Now,
( )
1
2
,
1
,
1
,
2
2
1
2
k
k k E
t
N
k
N
'
'
( )
2
2
2
2
2
,
1
,
1
,
k
k k E
t
k
N
'
'
+
( )
t
k k E
t
t
N
2
2
2
,
1
,
1
,
'
'
+
+
( )
1
2
,
1
,
1
,
2
2
1
E
k k E
t
E
N
'
'
(6.11)
The derivatives of the terms used in the Equation 6.11 are given in the ANNEXURE1 (as
deduced by Maji, 2004).
Where,
( )
tp w h h E E E
, , , , , , , , , f
s 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 t
(6.12)
Where,
= Mean value of the parameter in subscript
and
( ) 1
E
tp
,
s
w
,
2
h
,
1
h
,
3
,
2
,
1
,
3
E ,
2
E
,
1
E
t
2
2
1
t 2
E
'
'
+
( )
......
E
2
E
tp
,
s
w
,
2
h
,
1
h
,
3
,
2
,
1
,
3
E
,
2
E
,
1
E
2
2
2
t
+
'
'
..+
( ) p
t
tp
,
s
w
,
2
h
,
1
h
,
3
,
2
,
1
,
3
E
,
2
E
,
1
E
2
2
t
tp
'
'
(6.13)
where, = Standard deviation of the parameter in subscript
50
The derivatives of the parameters used in the Equation 5.12 are obtained
through numerical analysis using the centered finite divided difference formulation
(Chopra and Canale, 1998).
6.3.2.2. Estimation of Traffic Load:
Traffic load is assumed to be normally distributed with the mean and variance
estimated directly from the field observation. Hence,
E [X] =
X
(6.14)
VAR X =
x
2
(6.15)
where,
( )
'
'
+ r
n n
n A F D X
i
2
1
365
(6.16)
Equation 6.16 is the Taylor Series expansion up to second order terms, of the
equation given by IRC: 372001(3.3.6.1.) for computation of design traffic which is
mentioned below.
X=365 x A x D x F [(1+r)
n
1] / r
A = Present traffic in terms of number of commercial vehicles per day
D = Lane distribution factor.
F = Vehicle damage factor.
r = Traffic growth factor.
Here, in traffic prediction analysis all the variables except average daily traffic
A which is taken as deterministic, are taken as random variables. So the mean and standard
deviation of cumulative traffic loading can be computed as
( )
'
'
+
r VDF LDF
n n
n A
X
2
1
365 (6.17)
( ) , ,
2
2 2
VDF
X LDF VDF r
i
X
VDF
' '
( ) , ,
2
2
LDF
LDF VDF r
i
X
LDF
+
' '
51
( ) , ,
2
2
r
LDF VDF r
i
X
r
+
' '
(6.18)
6.3.2.3. Estimation of Damage Ratio:
For analytical simplicity damage is considered as the ratio of total traffic
loading over allowable fatigue load repetition for each individual analysis period (i.e.
i=1,2,.., 5). Hence by Taylors expansion mean and variance of damage can be obtained by
means of Cornells firstorder, second moment method. Under the assumption of
independence of X and N, we have
) 2 / exp(
2
i i
i
N N
i X
i
i
i D
EN
EX
ED
+
(6.19)
4 2
2
2
) ( ) (
i
i X
i
i X
i D
EN
xVarN
EN
VarD
i
i
+
(6.20)
Here, EN, VarN,
X
, and
X
are given by eq. (6.14), (6.15), (6.17) and (6.18)
respectively.
6.3.3. Computation of Percentage Cracking (%C):
From the experimental investigation by many researchers shows that the
critical value of D
f
at failure is not always close to 1 .00 but have a wide distribution. For
the present study, it is assumed to be normally distributed. Now with the value of. D
f
getting pass the critical value, the probability of crack initiation and propagation will
increase.. Hence it can be concluded that the probability of a pavement surface getting
cracked under traffic load is depend upon the probability of damage ratio D
f
reaches or
exceeds the value 1. So percentage of fatigue cracking can be expressed by
%C=100.Prob
) 1 (
f
D
(6.21)
Here %C represents percentage cracking.
6.4.SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS:
52
It is often necessary to identify the dominant parameters as would have
relatively strong influence on failure, not only for the sake of computation and lack of data,
but also for the fact that once such parameters are identified for several situations, efforts
can then be concentrated on making a more reliable estimates of such parameters in similar
field situations leading to a more authentic reliability calculation. The usual technique of
identification of the dominant parameters referred to above be a thorough parametric
study wherein each parameter is varied and the resulting change in the values of the
probability of failure noted. However, such a procedure often consumes inordinately large
computation as to render the procedure unattractive, if not altogether impractical. In recent
times, especially in structural reliability analysis, sensitivity of a random variable is
expressed in terms of its Importance Factor defined as follows (Adhikary and Langley
2002):
2
n
1 i i
i
F
X
X
I
i
,
`
.

,
`
.

(6.22)
where,
I
Fi
is the importance factor for the i
th
random parameter.
6.5. INPUT PARAMETERS:
6.5.1.Mean Values of The Random Variables
The mean values of the normally distributed design parameters considered in
this reliability analysis are presented in Table 5.2. For the mean values, IRC: 372001
guidelines have been followed as far as possible.
6.5.1.1.Average Annual Pavement Temperature (AAPT)
Considering Indian conditions, for this study, the Average Annual Pavement
Temperature (AAPT) has been taken as 35C.
53
6.5.1.2. Grade of Bitumen
The grade of bitumen is taken as 60/70 as par the Table Criteria for the
selection of grade of bitumen for bituminous courses of Annexure6, IRC: 372001, for
any climate, for heavy roads, expressways, urban roads traffic and for DBM, SDBC and
BC bituminous course.
6.5.1.3. Elastic Modulus of Bituminous Surface Layers:
The Elastic Modulus value of Bituminous Material (E
1
) is taken as 1695 MPa
from the Table Elastic Modulus (MPa) values of bituminous materials of Annexure1,
IRC: 372001, for BC and DBM 60/70 bitumen,
6.5.1.4. Modulus of Elasticity of Subgrade:
As per IRC: 372001, Annexure1, Modulus of Elasticity of Subgrade (E
3
),
E
3
(Mpa) = 10
(CBR)
0.64
for CBR>5 (6.23)
6.5.1.5. Modulus of Elasticity of Granular Subbase and Base layer:
As per IRC: 372001, Annexure1, Modulus of Elasticity of Granular Subbase
and Base,
E
2
(Mpa) = E
3
*0.2*(h
2
)
0.45
(6.24)
where, E
2
= Composite elastic modulus of granular Subbase and Base (Mpa)
E
3
= Elastic Modulus of Subgrade (Mpa)
h
2
= Thickness of granular layers (mm)
6.5.1.6. Poissons ratio of different layers of Pavement:
As per IRC: 372001, Annexure1, the Poissons ratio of Bituminous layer (
1
)
may be taken as 0.50 for pavement temperature of 35C and 40C. Poissons ratio for both
the Granular Subbase and Base layer (
2
) as well as Subgrade layer (
3
) are taken as 0.4.
6.5.1.7. Tyre Contact Pressure:
54
As reported by Chakroborty and Das (2003), a survey on tyre pressures of
commercial vehicles in India indicated that the pressure ranges from 0.77 to 0.84 Mpa.
Accordingly, in the present study a mean value of 0.8 MPa has been adopted.
6.5.1.8. Wheel Spacing:
For Indian condition, a wheel spacing of a dual wheel system has been adopted
as 310 mm (Chakroborty and Das,2003).
6.5.1.9. Regression Coefficients of Fatigue Equations:
The mean values for the regression coefficients of fatigue equations have been
adopted from Annexure1 of IRC: 372001.
6.5.1.10. Vehicle Damage Factor:
As per IRC: 372001, Section 3.3.4, Table 1, the indicative VDF values have
been adopted for the present study.
6.5.1.11. Lane Distribution Factor:
As per IRC: 372001, Section 3.3.5, for twolane single carriageway roads, the
design should be based on 75 percent of the total number of commercial vehicles in both
directions. So, a Lane Distribution Factor (LDF) of 0.75 has been adopted for the present
study.
6.5.1.12. Traffic Growth Rate:
Traffic growth rate has been taken as 7.5% as per IRC: 372001, Section 3.3.6.
Table 6.2: Mean Values of the Design Parameters Considered In the Study
Parameters Mean values Parameters Mean values
VDF 4.5
1
0.5
LDF 0.75
2
0.4
55
k
1f 2.21 10
4
3
0.4
k
2f
3.89
t
p
0.8 Mpa
k
3f
0.854
w
s
310 mm
E
1
1695 Mpa
r
7.5%
6.5.2. Coefficient of Variation (COV) of the Random Variables
The values of coefficient of variation (COV) are based on published literature
wherever available. The range of values of coefficient of variation (COV) as obtained from
various literature and the values adopted in the present study are listed in the following
table (Table 5.3). However, for the regression coefficients in the fatigue equation namely
k
1f
, k
2f
and and also LDF, VDF,
1
,
2
,
3
, w
s
, r, no such coeffiecient of variation (COV)
could be obtained from the literature survey. Hence these coeffiecients of variation (COV)
values have been suitably assumed and also have been presented in Table 6.3. ( These
values were earlier used by Maji (2003) andGhosh (2005))
Table 6.3: COV Values of the Design Parameters considered in the Study
56
6.6. RESULTS AND DISSCUSSION:
Various design pavement sections based on ME approach given by IRC: 37
2001 has been analyzed by using the developed computer program. Designed pavement
sections for three different design traffic viz. 50 MSA, 100 MSA & 150 MSA have been
taken for analysis. For each level of design traffic there are nine alternative design
solutions recommended under PLATE1 CATALOGUE and PLATE2 CATALOGUE in
IRC: 372001. For the present study, design solutions for subgrade strength CBR 5 to CBR
10 against mentioned level of design traffic given in PLATE2 CATALOGUE have been
taken for analysis. For the sake of ready reference, the IRC: 372001 design sections for the
Parameters
Type of
distribution
Range of
COV (%)
COV values adopted
(%)
References
LDF Normal 10 Assumed
VDF Normal 10 Assumed
E
1
Lognormal 10 to 40
10
Timm et al.(1998)
Normal 10 to 20 Noureldin et al.(1994)
Lognormal 570 Bush, D( 2004)
Lognormal 1040 Timm et al.(1999)
E
3
Normal 10 to 30
20
Noureldin et al.(1994)
Lognormal 5 to 60 Bush, D( 2004)
Lognormal 5 to 60 Timm et al.(1991)
1
10 Assumed
2
10 Assumed
3
10 Assumed
w
s
10 Assumed
t
p
15 10 Timm et al.
r 10 Assumed
h
1
Normal 312
10
Noureldin et al.(1994)
Timm et al.(1998)
Timm et al.(1999)
Normal 325 Bush D.(2004)
Normal 10 Darter et al.(1973)
h
2
Normal 1015
10
Timm et al.(1999)
Normal 535 Bush D.(2004)
57
above mentioned cases are reproduced in Tables 6.4(A), 6.4(A) and 6.4(A) respectively.
Results of analysis for the above mentioned design sections, as obtained using the
developed computer program, are presented in Tables 6.4(B), 6.4(B) and 6.4(B)
respectively. From these Tables the following observations can be made:
Damages (D
i
) found at the end of the last two time domain i.e. 9 12 year and 1215
year, are quite high than that of the first two time domain. Quantitatively it is 3 to 5
times more than that occurring during 1
st
time domain which is 03 years. It
indicates that by the time pavements service life passed 2/3
rd
of its design life it
reaches a very much vulnerable condition to damage severely under fatigue for the
rest of its design life, if any kind of rehabilitation work is not done to it.
For most of the IRC design sections considered in the study it has been found that
the accumulated damage ratio (D
f
) crosses the critical value i.e. 1 during 4
th
time
domain which means theoretically, between 912 years of its service life the
pavement would reach the limit state of failure.
Further, during the rest of its service life the value of D
i
will continue to increase
till the end of design life. For most of the design sections the final value of D
f
lies between 1.6 to 1.9. It indicates that due to various uncertainties in the design
process the pavement can suffer the effect of load repetition which is 1.6 to 1.9
times of actual traffic load repetition. However, this conclusion is valid only under
the given set of values of input parameters, used in the present analysis.
Looking at the cracking criteria, a few design sections (6 no.) have shown limited
damage with cracking well below 20% at the end of design life. However 2 out of
18 selected design sections prematurely crossed the permissible limit of 20%
fatigue cracking (as given by IRC: 372001) during the 4
th
time domain i.e. during
912 years of service life. Along with them other sections will exhibit moderate to
higher percentage of cracking (between 20%54%).
For most of the design sections (15 out of 18) more than 60% of the total damage
in terms of cracking occurs at the last time domain i.e. during 1215 years of
service life. It implies progressive failure occurs with age of the pavement.
Table 6.4(A)
Various Layer Thicknesses for Design Traffic 50 MSA from IRC:372001
58
CBR Bituminous Surfacing Base SubBase h1(mm) h2(mm)
(%) BC(mm) DBM(mm) (mm) (mm) (BC+DBM) (Base+SubBase)
5 40 140 250 300 180 550
6 40 125 250 260 165 510
7 40 130 250 230 170 480
8 40 120 250 200 160 450
9 40 115 250 200 155 450
10 40 110 250 200 150 450
Table 6.4(B)
Result of Analysis for Various Design Sections of 50 MSA Traffic Shown in Table 6.4(A)
CBR h1(mm) h2(mm) i Ni(year) E1(MPa) e x 10
4
N f Nd D i %C i D f %C
1 03 1695 2.3255 52.6 7.05 0.104 0 0.1 0.00
2 36 980 3.1687 25.2 8.34 0.256 0.02 0.36 0.02
5 180 550 3 69 930 3.258 23.7 9.87 0.323 0.59 0.68 0.61
4 912 898 3.317 22.7 11.7 0.397 3.44 1.08 1.02
5 1215 874 3.365 22 13.8 0.485 10.2 1.57 11.23
1 03 1695 2.527 38.1 7.05 0.145 0 0.15 0.00
2 36 980 3.411 18.9 8.34 0.344 1 0.49 1.00
6 165 510 3 69 930 3.04 17.8 9.87 0.431 5.37 0.92 6.37
4 912 898 3.566 17.1 11.7 0.53 14 1.45 20.37
5 1215 874 3.615 16.6 13.8 0.645 25.5 2.1 45.83
1 03 1695 2.373 48.6 7.05 0.113 0 0.11 0.00
2 36 980 3.19 24.6 8.34 0.263 0.04 0.38 0.04
7 170 480 3 69 930 3.275 23.2 9.87 0.33 0.71 0.71 0.75
4 912 898 3.332 22.3 11.7 0.405 3.92 1.11 4.67
5 1215 874 3.377 21.7 13.8 0.492 10.8 1.6 15.42
1 03 1695 2.49 39.8 7.05 0.139 0 0.14 0.00
2 36 980 3.333 20.7 8.34 0.314 0.4 0.45 0.40
8 160 450 3 69 930 3.42 19.6 9.87 0.392 2.94 0.85 3.34
4 912 898 3.48 18.9 11.7 0.479 9.34 1.32 12.68
5 1215 874 3.52 18.4 13.8 0.583 19.5 1.91 32.17
1 03 1695 2.503 39.5 7.05 0.14 0 0.14 0.00
2 36 980 3.32 21.1 8.34 0.308 0.31 0.45 0.31
3 69 930 3.4 20 9.87 0.383 2.56 0.83 2.87
9 155 450 4 912 898 3.46 19.3 11.7 0.468 8.53 1.3 11.40
5 1215 874 3.5 18.8 13.8 0.565 17.9 1.86 29.28
1 03 1695 2.52 38.4 7.05 0.144 0 0.14 0.00
2 36 980 3.322 21 8.34 0.306 0.36 0.45 0.36
10 150 450 3 69 930 3.4 19.9 9.87 0.384 2.62 0.83 2.98
4 912 898 3.46 19.3 11.7 0.468 8.53 1.3 11.51
5 1215 874 3.501 18.8 13.8 0.566 17.9 1.87 29.39
Table 6.5(A)
Various Layer Thicknesses for Design Traffic 100 MSA from IRC:372001
CBR Bituminous Surfacing Base SubBase h1(mm) h2(mm)
(%) BC(mm) DBM(mm) (mm) (mm) (BC+DBM) (Base+SubBase)
59
5 50 150 250 300 200 550
6 50 140 250 260 190 510
7 50 145 250 230 195 480
8 50 140 250 200 190 450
9 50 135 250 200 185 450
10 50 130 250 200 180 450
Table 6.5(B)
Result of Analysis for Various Design Sections of 50MSA Traffic Shown in Table 6.5(A)
CBR h1(mm) h2(mm) i Ni(year) E1(MPa) e x 10
4
N f Nd D i %C i D f %C
1 03 1695 2.0306 89.10 14.13 0.122 0 0.12 0
2 36 968.38 2.7968 41.37 16.72 0.31 0.44 0.43 0.44
5 200 550 3 69 920.52 2.8733 38.9 19.78 0.389 3.29 0.82 3.73
4 912 890.15 2.9247 37.36 23.4 0.479 10.1 1.3 13.86
5 1215 866.85 2.9658 36.2 27.69 0.586 20.3 1.89 34.19
1 03 1695 2.1204 75.31 14.13 0.145 0 0.15 0
2 36 968.38 2.8982 36.02 16.72 0.357 1.62 0.5 1.62
6 190 510 3 69 920.52 2.9754 33.96 19.78 0.447 7.22 0.95 8.84
4 912 890.15 3.027 32.68 23.4 0.55 16.7 1.5 25.52
5 1215 866.85 3.068 31.72 27.69 0.67 28.1 2.17 53.61
1 03 1695 1.999 94.73 14.13 0.115 0 0.12 0
2 36 968.38 2.719 46.71 16.72 0.277 0.11 0.39 0.11
7 195 480 3 69 920.52 2.7902 43.61 19.78 0.347 1.37 0.74 1.48
4 912 890.15 2.8379 42.01 23.4 0.425 5.75 1.16 7.23
5 1215 866.85 2.8757 40.81 27.69 0.518 13.9 1.68 21.13
1 03 1695 2.0256 89.97 14.13 0.122 0 0.12 0
2 36 968.38 2.7394 44.86 16.72 0.286 0.16 0.41 0.16
8 190 450 3 69 920.52 2.8094 42.46 19.78 0.357 1.71 0.76 1.87
4 912 890.15 2.8561 40.98 23.4 0.438 6.55 1.2 8.42
5 1215 866.85 2.8933 39.86 27.69 0.532 15.2 1.73 23.57
1 03 1695 2.0256 89.96 14.13 0.121 0 0.12 0
2 36 968.38 2.7209 46.05 16.72 0.278 0.11 0.4 0.11
9 185 450 3 69 920.52 2.7886 43.7 19.78 0.346 1.36 0.75 1.47
4 912 890.15 2.8338 42.24 23.4 0.423 5.48 1.17 6.95
5 1215 866.85 2.8697 41.15 27.69 0.514 13.6 1.68 20.52
1 03 1695 2.0357 88.24 14.13 0.124 0 0.12 0
2 36 968.38 2.7185 46.21 16.72 0.277 0.11 0.4 0.11
10 180 450 3 69 920.52 2.7846 43.95 19.78 0.344 1.32 0.75 1.43
4 912 890.15 2.8287 42.55 23.4 0.42 5.37 1.16 6.8
5 1215 866.85 2.8637 41.48 27.69 0.509 13.1 1.67 19.94
Table 6.6(A)
Various Layer Thicknesses for Design Traffic 150 MSA from IRC:372001
CBR Bituminous Surfacing Base SubBase h1(mm) h2(mm)
(%) BC(mm) DBM(mm) (mm) (mm) (BC+DBM) (Base+SubBase)
5 50 170 250 300 220 550
6 50 160 250 260 210 510
60
7 50 165 250 230 215 480
8 50 160 250 200 210 450
9 50 155 250 200 205 450
10 50 150 250 200 200 450
Table 6.6(B)
Result of Analysis for Various Design Sections of 150MSA Traffic Shown in Table 6.6(A)
CBR h1(mm) h2(mm) i Ni(year) E1(MPa) e x 10
4
N f Nd D i %C i D f %C
1 03 1695 1.7889 145.9 21.54 0.11 0 0.111 0
2 36 964.51 2.478 66.48 25.03 0.29 0.2 0.398 0.2
5 220 550 3 69 917.96 2.5449 62.52 29.62 0.36 2.02 0.758 2.22
4 912 888.43 2.5897 60.75 35.04 0.45 7.35 1.203 9.57
5 1215 865.78 2.6253 58.23 41.47 0.54 16.4 1.743 25.92
1 03 1695 1.8618 124.9 21.54 0.13 0 0.131 0
2 36 964.51 2.5594 58.63 25.03 0.33 0.8 0.457 0.8
6 210 510 3 69 917.96 2.6269 55.26 29.62 0.41 4.65 0.866 5.45
4 912 888.43 2.6719 53.2 35.04 0.5 12.5 1.368 17.96
5 1215 865.78 2.7077 51.64 41.47 0.21 15.4 1.575 33.35
1 03 1695 1.7599 155.4 21.54 0.1 0 0.104 0
2 36 964.51 2.4075 74.38 25.03 0.26 0.04 0.36 0.038
7 215 480 3 69 917.96 2.4695 70.29 29.62 0.32 0.71 0.681 0.752
4 912 888.43 2.511 67.73 35.04 0.39 3.75 1.074 4.502
5 1215 865.78 2.5439 65.82 41.47 0.48 10.6 1.552 15.06
1 03 1695 1.7806 148.5 21.54 0.1 0 0.098 0
2 36 964.51 2.422 72.66 25.03 0.26 0.06 0.361 0.056
8 210 450 3 69 917.96 2.4831 68.79 29.62 0.33 0.89 0.688 0.946
4 912 888.43 2.5238 66.41 35.04 0.4 4.27 1.089 5.216
5 1215 865.78 2.5562 64.61 41.47 0.49 11.3 1.577 16.53
1 03 1695 1.778 149.4 21.54 0.11 0 0.109 0
2 36 964.51 2.4022 75.02 25.03 0.25 0.03 0.362 0.034
9 205 450 3 69 917.96 2.4611 71.22 29.62 0.32 0.64 0.678 0.674
4 912 888.43 2.5005 68.85 35.04 0.39 3.36 1.064 4.036
5 1215 865.78 2.5317 67.07 41.47 0.47 9.68 1.533 13.72
1 03 1695 1.784 147.4 21.54 0.11 0 0.11 0
2 36 964.51 2.3964 75.73 25.03 0.25 0.03 0.362 0.029
10 200 450 3 69 917.96 2.4538 72.04 29.62 0.31 0.57 0.673 0.599
4 912 888.43 2.4921 69.75 35.04 0.38 3.14 1.054 3.743
5 1215 865.78 2.5224 68.04 41.47 0.46 9.18 1.515 12.92
Notations of the symbols used in the Table 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6
h1 Thickness of bituminous surface layer
h2 Thickness of combined base and subbase layer
i  Number of analysis periods
N
i
service life corresponding to each analysis period
E1 elastic modulus of bituminous surface layer at the start of each analysis period
61
i
 tensile strain at the bottom of bituminous surface layer
N
f
 Fatigue life of the pavement section for the corresponding
i
N
d
 Design traffic for the period i
D
i
damage occurs during the period i
D
f
Value of accumulated damage ratio after period i
%C
i
Cracking occurred during the period i
%C Percentage cracking after i
For each level of design traffic it has been found out that design solution given for
subgrade strength CBR 6 exhibit most severe fatigue damage in terms of
accumulated damage ratio as well as cracking. It indicates a lack of uniformity in
design thicknesses provided against various subgrade strength for specific level of
design traffic. For 50 MSA and 100 MSA of design traffic the design sections for
subgrade CBR of 6 would cross the 20% cracking limit at the end of 12
th
and 11
th
year respectively; finally it would exhibit 45.83% and 53.61% cracking at the end
of design life respectively. However, for 150 MSA of design traffic the
corresponding design section show somehow less damage with 33.35% cracking at
the end of design life.
For higher level of design traffic viz. 150 MSA, design sections for subgrade
strength CBR 7, 8, 9, and 10 have shown very safe performances.
For a typical case of 100 MSA design traffic two performance curves 
(i) Percentage fatigue cracking (%C) vs. Service life of pavement and
(ii) Accumulated damage ratio (D
J
) vs. Service life of pavement
are shown in Fig.6.1 (A) and Fig.6.1 (B). From Fig.6.1 (A) design pavement
sections having subgrade CBR 7, 8, 9 and CBR 10 have shown the desired
performances. From Fig.6.1 (B) it is seen that trends of accumulation of fatigue
damage ratio are similar for different subgrade strength except for CBR 6, which
has a very unusual trend of sharp increase.
62
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
S ervi c e Li f e ( i n year )
CBR 5
CBR 6
CBR 7
CBR8
CBR9
CBR10
Figure 6.1 (A): Performance Curve I (for %C vs. Service life) for
Design traffic of 100 MSA
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Service Life(in year)
D
a
m
a
g
e
R
a
t
i
o
(
D
f
)
CBR 5
CBR 6
CBR 7
CBR 8
CBR 9
CBR 10
Figure 6.1 (B): Performance Curve II (for D
f
vs. Service life) for100 MSA Traffic
The shown performance curves can be utilized in PMS in terms of pavement
rehabilitation work. For the design sections for which the percentage cracking goes beyond
63
the permissible limit (i.e. 20%) during a certain period of their service life, the critical
period can be found out from the performance curves and accordingly the maintenance
program can be planned in advance. Now this maintenance work can be done by applying
better quality of materials with same design specification or by modifying the geometrical
design specification (i.e. increasing the thickness of layers). But whatever alternative is
selected for execution it should be cost effective as well as structurally safe with optimum
performance. For example, for the design section having subgrade strength CBR of 6 for
level of traffic 100 MSA two maintenance alternatives can be applied as follow:
(i) Increasing the thickness of bituminous surface layer by 20 mm at the
end of 9 year of service life.
(ii) Increasing the thickness of bituminous surface layer by 10 mm at the
end of 9 year and 12 year of service life successively.
These have been obtained by trial and error as shown in table 6.7.
Now Fig.6.2 shows the original fatigue performance curve (solid line) along with
modified fatigue performance curve due to application of two maintenance alternatives,
mentioned above. Blue line for 1
st
alternative and the Orange line for other alternative.
Here 1
st
alternative shows satisfactory performance whereas the 2
nd
alternative shows
quite safe performance. But for economic point of view 1
st
alternative is preferable.
0
1.62
8.84
25.52
53.61
0
1.62
7.22
10
14.85
0
1.62
7.22
14.8
19.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20
Service Life (in year)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
C
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
(
i
n
%
)
CBR 6
P1
P2
Figure 6.2.: Performance Curve I for 100 MSA Traffic with Rehabilitation Plans
64
64
Table 6.8 presents the results of sensitivity analysis for fatigue damage in terms of
the importance factors for all the random variables. The sensitivity of a parameter is
expressed by its importance factor. The parameters have been ranked in accordance
with the magnitude of its importance factor. For the sake of convenience, the design
parameters have been grouped as traffic, Material and Regression parameters.
Relative rank of a parameter indicates its position in its group whereas, its absolute
rank indicates its position in the entire vector.
Table 6.8: Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Fatigue Damage
Parameter Importance Factor Relative
Rank
Absolute
Rank
Traffic Parameter
Lane Distribution Factor 2.879x10
3
2 8
Vehicle Damage Factor 2.879x10
3
3 9
Traffic growth rate 9.91x10
4
5 12
Tyre contact pressure 3.778x10
3
1 7
Wheel Spacing 2.325x10
3
4 10
Material Parameters
Elastic modulus of surface layer 1.097x10
1
4 4
Elastic modulus of base layer 1.6324x10
2
6 6
Elastic modulus of subgrade 8.09x10
5
15 10
Poissons Ratio of surface layer 3.17x10
4
8 13
Poissons Ratio of base layer 2.4504x10
1
3 3
Poissons Ratio of subgrade 2.7209x10
2
5 5
Thickness of surface layer 8.162x10
3
1 1
Thickness of base layer 5.081x10
3
2 2
Regression coefficients
K
1
2.87x10
4
9 14
K
2
1.519x10
3
7 11
The amount of fatigue cracking for the two design sections which have 49.37% and
36.77% fatigue reliability (Ghosh, 2005) are 13% and 3.46 % respectively at the
end of service life.
65
66
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION:
7.1. CONCLUSIONS:
On the basis of the studies carried out in this thesis, the following concluding
remarks can be made.
The developed computer program FATEVA is capable of estimating damage
ratio (D
f
) and percentage cracking (%C) considering fatigue distress of the
pavement. Damage ratio (D
f
) is a parameter which is more useful for analysis point
of view, whereas, percentage cracking (%C) is more applicable for visible
detection of fatigue failure and field estimation of the same. Besides these the
developed program can also estimate the changes of elastic modulus of bituminous
surface and fatigue strain at the bottom of same surface due to repeated application
of traffic load.
FATEVA can be suitably utilized in design process. In the ME design approach
pavements are designed following iterative procedure. A trial section is taken
based upon experience and analyzed mechanistically for given the traffic load and
environmental conditions. If the distresses (fatigue, rutting etc.) are found to be
within the permissible limits then trial section is treated as design section.
Otherwise the section will be modified iteratively till the distresses come within
the permissible limit. Here, FATEVA can be used to check the fatigue
performance of a trial section in terms of both D
f
and %C criteria as per local
requirements.
Besides its usefulness in the design process, FATEVA can be utilized in Pavement
Management System (PMS) to prepare different rehabilitation plans as per desired
fatigue performance of the design section. For in service pavements with large
extent of fatigue damage rehabilitation plans can be drawn up by either of the
following two ways:
1. Rehabilitation by increasing the thickness bituminous layer.
2. Rehabilitation by use of better quality of materials.
67
In such situations, FATEVA can be utilized to determine iteratively the
necessary increment in thickness of the same material or to select an improved
material with high stiffness for the same thickness.
For the failed pavement sections, maximum fatigue damage occurs during the last
1/3
rd
of the service life. During this period the rate of cracking increased sharply.
To be more specific, in a service design life of 15 years severe damage occurs
during 1215 of service life. (Refer Section 6.6)
With the increase of service life the magnitudes of fatigue strain increases,
however the rate of increase of fatigue strain decrease with the pavement age.
(Refer Section 6.6)
From the result of sensitivity analysis it has been found that, thickness of surface
layer , granular base layer and stiffness of bituminous concrete are the three major
design parameters which influence the fatigue damage of the pavement in a large
extent.
7.2. SCOPE OF FURTHER WORK:
The present study can be extended along the following lines:
Probabilistic values of very limited no. of design inputs are available in literature.
Hence estimation of these parameters based upon local conditions instead of
assumptions would make the computation more reliable.
Use of traffic load spectrum instead of ESAL data can be utilized to rationalize the
wheel load estimation.
Inclusion of temperature model to estimate the stiffness of bituminous layer would
make the study capable of evaluating the temperature effects on pavement
performance.
For more accurate probability analysis more rigorous method of reliability analysis
such as ASM method should be employed instead of MFOSM method, which is
applied for the present study with following assumptions:
68
1. The performance function, g(X) is nonlinear, significant errors may be
introduced by neglecting higher order terms in the Taylors series
expansion.
2. This method fails to be invariant to different mechanically equivalent
formulation of the same problem
It is also desirable to verify the results by direct MonteCarlo simulation.
For present study, all the variables have been taken as normally distributed and un
correlated to each other. Other types of distributions viz. beta distribution,
Poissons distribution should be applied for the variables along with their
correlation.
Non destructive tests can be done on pavement sections to measure the changes of
materialistic properties like stiffness, plastic strain etc. of bituminous concrete due
to repletion of traffic load.
69
REFERRENCE
1. AASHTO (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington
D.C.
2. AbuLebdeh, G., R. Lyles, G. Baladi and K. Ahmed (2003), Development of
Alternative Pavement Distress Index Models. Final Report, Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University.
3. Ali, H.A. and S.D. Tayabji (1998) Evaluation of MechanisticEmpirical
Performance Prediction Models for Flexible Pavements Transportation Research
Record 1629.Paper No.980259. Pp.169180.
4. Alsherri, A ad K.P Georgr.(1998) Reliability Model for Pavement Performance.
Reviewed by Highway Division.Pp.294306Ayers M. and M.W. Witczak.
Mechanistic Probabilistic System to Evaluate Flexible Pavement Performance
Transportation Research Record 1629. Paper No.980738.
5. Baecher, G.B. and J.T.Christian (2003). Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical
Engineering 2003 John Wiley & Sons Ltd., The Atrium, Southern Gate,
Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England.
6. Bourdeau, P.L. (1990). Probabilistic Models of Flexible Pavements
Transportation Research Record 1286. Pp.184191.
7. Burnham, T.R. Application of Empirical and Mechanistic Empirical Pavement
Design Procedures to Road Concrete Pavement Test Sections .Office of Minnesota
Road Research, Minnesota Department of Transportation.
8. Basma, A.A. and AlBlabissi, A.H. (1989) Probabilistic Design of Flexible and
Rigid Pavements Using AASHTO Equations Transportation Research Record
1227. Pp.3443.
9. Carvalho, R. L. and C. W. Schwartz. (2005) Comparisons of the flexible Pavement
Designs: AASHTO Empirical vs. NCHRP 137A MechanisticEmpirical. TRB
2006 Annual Meeting CDROM.
70
10. Carvalho, R. L. E. De (2006) MechanisticEmpirical Design of Flexible
Pavements: A Sensitivity Study . Thesis Submitted to The Faculty of The Graduate
School of the Maryland, College Park, 2006.
11. Chakroborty, P. and A. Das (2003) Principals of Transportation Engineering.
2003 by PrenticeHall of India Private Limited, New Delhi. ISBN8120320840.
12. CorleyLay, J. and C.S.Morrison (2001). Layer Thickness Variability for Flexible
Pavements in North Carolina. Transportation Research Record 1778. Paper No.
012210.Pp.107112.
13. Cunagain, W.D. and P. M. Kent (1998) Reliability of Traffic Data. Transportation
Research Record 1625. Paper No. 980967. Pp.1825.
14. Divinsky, M., I. Ishai and M. Livneh (1996) Simplified Generalized California
Bearing Ratio Pavement Design Equation Transportation Research Record 1539.
Pp.4450.
15. Divinsky, M., I. Ishai and M. Livneh (1998) Probabilistic Approach to Design
Based on Generalized California Bearing Ratio Equation Journal of
Transportation Engineering, November/December 1998. Pp.582588.
16. Fernando, E., D. Luhr and D. Anderson (1986) Development of a Simplified
Mechanistic Pavement Evaluation and Overlay Design Procedure for Flexible
Pavements. Transportation Research Record 1095.
17. Georgr, K.P. and S.Husain. (1986) Thickness Design for Flexible Pavement: A
Probabilistic Approach Transportation Research Record 1095. Pp.2636.
18. Georgr, K.P. and S.Husain. (1986) Thickness Design for Flexible Pavement: A
Probabilistic Approach Transportation Research Record 1095. Pp.2636.
19. Georgr, K.P. and A. Alsherri and N.S. Saha (??????) Reliability Analysis of
Premium Design Features. Reviewed by Highway Division.Pp.278293
20. Ghosh, I., G.Bhattacharya, S.K. Roy. (2005) Reliability Analysis of Pavements
Designed By Mechanistic Empirical Approach . A Thesis for the Degree of
Master of Engineering (Highway & Traffic Engineering). Department of the Civil
Engineering, Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur, Howrah
711103. India. July 2005.
71
21. Hajek, J.J. (1995) General Axle Load Equivalency Factors. Transportation
Research Record 1482. Pp.6778.
22. Hajeek, J.J., O.Selezneva, J.Y. Jiang and G. Mladenovic (2002) Improving
Reliability of Pavement Loading Estimates with Pavement Loading Guide.
Transportation Research Record 1809. Paper No. 022658. Pp.93104.
23. Harichandran, R.S., N. Buch and G. Y. Baladi (2001) Flexible Pavement Design
in Michigan: Transition from Empirical to Mechanistic Methods Transportation
Research Record 1778. Paper No.012817. Pp. 100105.
24. Hong, H.P., and S.S.Wang (2003).Stochastic Modeling of Pavement
Performance. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol.4 (4), December
2003. Pp.235243.
25. IIT Kanpur. (2002) A Two Day Workshop on Design of Flexible Pavement With
Emphasis on The New IRC: 372001 Guidelines Reading Material. Coordinated by
Dr. Animesh Das. Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Kanpur.
26. IRC. Guidelines for The Design of Flexible Pavements (Second Revision). IRC:
372001. The Indian Road Congress, 2001.
27. Jiang, Y. Jane, O. Selezneva, G. Mladenovic, S. Aref and M. Darter (2003).
Estimation of Pavement Layer Thickness Variability for ReliabilityBased Design.
Transportation Research Record 1849. Paper No.032886. Pp. 156165.
28. Joseph, M.A., B. G. Sreedevi and T. Elangovan (2004) Reliability Based
Pavement Design Charts for Low Volume Roads of Kerala. Indian Highways,
October 2004. Pp.2534
29. Killingsworth, B. M. and D.G. Zollinger (1995). Sensitivity Analysis of Input
Parameters for Pavement Design and Reliability . Transportation Research Record
1482. Pp. 111122.
30. Kim, H. B. and N. Buch (2003). ReliabilityBased Pavement Design Model
Accounting for Inherent Variability of Design Parameters. 82
nd
Transportation
Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., January 1216.2003.
31. Kim, H. B. (2006) A Practical Probabilistic Design Format for Flexible
Pavements. 85
th
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington
D.C., January 2226.2006.
72
32. Kim, Yongon and Y.R. Kim (1997) In Situ Evaluation of Fatigue Damage Growth
and Healing of Asphalt Concrete Pavement Using stress Wave Method .
Transportation Research Record 1568. Pp.2636.
33. Long, F. J. Harvey, C. Scheffy and C.L.Monismoth (1996) Prediction of Pavement
Fatigue for California Department of Transportation Accelerated Pavement
Testing Program: Drained and Undrained Section Transportation Research
Record 1540. Pp.105115.
34. Maji, A. (2004) Reliability Considerations of Bituminous Pavement Design by
MechanisticEmpirical Approach. M. Tech. Thesis ,IIT Kanpur, India
35. Monismith, C. I. (2004) Evolution of LongLasting Asphalt Pavement Design
Methodology: A Perspective. International Symposium on Design and
Construction of Long Lasting Asphalt Pavement. Auburn University, Alabama
USA. June 79, 2004.
36. NCHRP(2004) Guide for MechanisticEmpirical Design of New and Rehabilitated
Pavement Structures Final Report, Submitted By ARA,INC.,ERES Consultation
Division, 505 west University Avenue, Champaign, Illions 61820. March 2004.
37. Noureldin, A.Samy, E.Sharaf, A.Arafah and F.Al Sugar (1996) Rational Selection
of Factors of Safety in Reliability Based Design of Flexible Pavements in Saudi
Arabia. Transportation Research Record 1540. Pp. 3947.
38. ORITE (2001) Pavement Performance Testing, Report No. FHWA/OH
2001/14.Ohio Department of Transportation Library , 1980 West Bound St.
Colombus, OH 43223
39. Paterson, W.D.O. and A.D. Chesher (1986) On Predicting Pavement Surface
Distress with Empirical Models of Failure pavements Transportation Research
Record 1095. Pp.4556.
40. Potter, J.C. (1987) Reliability of the Flexible Pavement Design Model
Transportation Research Record 1136. Pp.7985.
41. Prozzi, J. A., and S. Mdanat (2003). Analysis of Experimental Pavement Failure
Data Using Duration Model. Transportation Center, University of California.
Barkley, CA 94720. UCTC No. 679.
73
42. Prozzi, J. A., and S.M. Mdanat (2004). Development of Pavement Performance
Models by Combining Experimental and Field Data . Journal of Infrastructure
Systems @ ASCE/ March 2004. Pp. 922
43. Prozzi, J. A., V. Gossain and I. Manuel (2005). Reliability of Pavement Structures
using Empirical Mechanistic Models. TRB 2005 Annual Meeting CDROM.
Pp.127.
44. Rahut, J. B. and M. I. Darter (1994). Early Analyses of LTPP General Pavement
Studies Data: Executive Summary. Strategic Highway Research ProgramP392,
National Research Council. Washington D.C.1994.
45. SanchezSilva, M., O. Arroyo, M.Junca, S.Caro and B. Caicedo (2005). Reliability
Based Design Optimization of Asphalt Pavement. International Journal of
Pavement Engineering, Vol.6, No.4, December 2005, pp.281294.
46. Sun, L., W. R. Hudson, Z. Zhang (2003). EmpiricalMechanistic Method Based
Stochastic Modeling of Fatigue Damage to Predict Flexible Pavement Cracking for
Transportation Infrastructure Management. Journal of Transportation Engineering
ASCE / March/ April 2003. Pp.109117.
47. Timm, D.H., D.E.Newcomb and T.V. Galambose (2000).Incorporation of
Reliability into MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Transportation Research
Record 1730.Paper No.000135 Pp.7380.
48. Thompson, M.R. (1996) MechanisticEmpirical Flexible Pavement Design: An
Overview Transportation Research Record 1539. Pp.15.
49. Uzan, J. (1996) A Pavement Design and Rehabilitation System Transportation
Research Record 1539. Pp.110115.
50. Uzan, J. (1997) Evaluation of Fatigue Cracking Transportation Research Record
1570. Pp.8995.
51. Wang, Y., K. C. Mahboud and D. E. Hancher (2005). Survival Analysis of
Fatigue Cracking for Flexible Pavements Based on LongTerm Pavement
Performance Data. Journal of Transportation Engineering ASCE / August 2005.
Pp.607616.
74
52. Zhang, Z. and I. Damnjanovic (2006). Applying Method of Moments to Model
Reliability of Pavement Infrastructure. Journal of Transportation Engineering
ASCE / May 2006. Pp.415416.
75
ANNEXURE 1
Generally, Flexure Fatigue Beam Test is done on bituminous concrete sample
in the laboratory to find the fatigue life of the same. Ohio Research Institute of
Transportation and Environment (ORITE) (Report No.FHWA/OH2001/14; Title
Pavement Performance Testing; December, 2001) had done similar tests on number of
bituminous concrete sample and produced a typical graph of Flexural stiffness versus
Logarithm of Load repetition for the samples, as shown below in Fig. A1.1
Figure A.1.1: Typical graph of stiffness vs. log (no. of load cycle)
(Taken from Report No.FHWA/OH2001/14; Title Pavement Performance Testing;
December, 2001)
From the Figure A1.1 it is evident that flexural stiffness of bituminous
concrete varies linearly with the logarithmic value of load repetition. Based on this, linear
equations having variables stiffness (E1) and log (no. of load cycle) (log N) have been
developed to get ideal relation between flexural stiffness of bituminous concrete and traffic
load repetition as follows.
E1= M x log N + C (A.1.1)
76
From the Eq. A.1.1 , using known values of E1 (in GPa) and N, values of M
and C have been calculated for different design traffic (N) are presented in Table A.1.1.
Table A.1.1: Values of M and C for Different Design Traffic
Design Traffic (MSA) M C
50 0.064 1.9983
100 0.613 1.9776
150 0.596 1.9698
ANNEXURE 2
77
The derivatives of the terms used in the Equation 6.11 (Section 6.2.1) are obtained as
follows:
f 3
1
f 2
k
t
f 2
k
,
f 1
k
,
1
E
,
t
k
E f 1
f 1 1
k
N
,
`
.

,
`
.

,
`
.

f 3
1 t
f 2
k
t
f 1
f 2
k
,
f 1
k
,
1
E
,
t
k
E
k
f 2
f 1 1
ln
1
k
N
,
`
.

,
`
.

,
`
.

,
`
.

f 3
1
f 2
k
t
f 2 f 1
f 2
k
,
f 1
k
,
1
E
,
t
k
E
1
k k
t
f 1 1
N
,
`
.

,
`
.

,
`
.

,
`
.

,
`
.

,
`
.

f 3
1
f 2
k
t
f 1
f 2
k
,
f 1
k
,
1
E
,
t
k
E
k
1
f 1 1
E
N
]
]
]
]
,
`
.

+
,
`
.

1
t
k
E
k
E
1 1
t
f 2
1
f 3
78