Canadian Guide: Default Parameters For AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design

Canadian Guide:
Default Parameters for AASHTOWare

Pavement ME Design
Working Copy
Developed by Pavement ME Design User Group
December 2014
Foreword
This working document is primarily based on the Ontario Guide: Default Parameters for
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Interim Report developed by Ministry of
Transportation Ontario (MTO). This document is prepared by the TAC Pavement ME Design
User Group as a reference tool for Canadian agencies. This document is still under development
and updates will be provided as information becomes available.
The document incorporates various Canadian agencies practices in the area of mechanisticempirical pavement design. The information presented in this document was carefully researched
and presented. However, no warranty, express or implied, is made on the accuracy of the
contents or their extraction from referenced publications; nor shall the fact of distribution
constitute responsibility by anyone, or any researchers or contributors for omissions, errors or
possible misrepresentation, or financial loss that may result from use or interpretation of the
material herein contained.
Pavement ME User Group
Page 2 of 52
Canadian Guide: Default Parameters for AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
Table of Contents
Foreword................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.0
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4
2.0
General Project Information ......................................................................................................... 5
2.1
3.0
Analysis Parameters .................................................................................................................. 5

Traffic .......................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1
AADTT...................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2
Traffic Capacity........................................................................................................................ 16
3.3
Axle Configuration................................................................................................................... 16
3.4
Lateral Wander ....................................................................................................................... 16
3.5
Wheelbase .............................................................................................................................. 17
3.6
Vehicle Class Distribution and Growth ................................................................................... 17
3.7
Axles Per Truck ........................................................................................................................ 17
3.8
Axle Load Distribution Tables.................................................................................................. 19
3.9
MTO iCorridor ......................................................................................................................... 28
4.0
Climate ........................................................................................................................................ 30
5.0
Structure Layers Information ...................................................................................................... 33
5.1
HMA Properties....................................................................................................................... 33
5.2
Concrete Properties ................................................................................................................ 45
5.3
Granular Properties................................................................................................................. 47
5.4
Subgrade Properties................................................................................................................ 50
Page 3 of 52
1.0
Introduction
In the late 1990s, the move to an empirical-mechanistic pavement design methodology was
initiated under NCHRP projects 1-37A and 1-40D. The objective was to develop a more
rigorous design tool that better characterizes material and pavement performance. The
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) is the outcome of the research. The
MEPDG Manual of Practice was issued by AASHTO in 2008. The associated software,
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design was officially launched in the summer of 2011. Canadian
agencies are working towards adoption and validation of the AASHTOWare Pavement ME
Design procedure for local conditions.
This working document introduces customized default parameters for Canadian conditions when
using AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design. It is a reference document to assist designer in
selecting default parameters for Level 3 analysis. These customized default parameters are
appropriate for typical pavement structure designs. For certain parameters where no guidance in
this working document is provided, default values from the AASHTOWare Pavement ME
Design program should be used.
Page 4 of 52
2.0
General Project Information
2.1
Analysis Parameters
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design has a list of performance criteria thresholds that need to be
satisfied in order for the pavement design to pass. For flexible pavement, determining criteria
are total rutting (permanent deformation) and initial/terminal International Roughness Index
(IRI) values. For rigid pavement, initial and terminal IRI values, transverse cracking and mean
joint faulting are the determining criteria.
IRI is a good indication of pavement performance. The initial IRI represents the starting value
and the terminal IRI represents the threshold value of IRI for specific design reliability in
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design. Adjustment to the IRI values should be made to
customize for local conditions. Tables 1 and 2 provide typical initial and terminal IRI input
values reflecting local conditions. Tables 3 provide the performance criteria target values from
different agencies. Some of the performance target values are based on highway facility type or
traffic volume. Tables 4 show the reliability levels based on different highway type or traffic
volume. Engineering judgement is required when applying these values and to extrapolate any
data that is unavailable.
Table 1a: Ontario Recommended Initial IRI (m/km) Inputs Based on Treatments and Facility
Type i
Treatments
Freeway
Hot Mix Overlay 1 lift

Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
Mill + Hot Mix Overlay 1 lift
Mill + Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
Mill + Hot Mix Overlay 3 lifts
Cold in-place + Hot Mix Overlay 1 lift
Cold in-place + Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
Full Depth Reclamation + Hot Mix Overlay 1 lift
Full Depth Reclamation + Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
Full Depth Reclamation + Hot Mix Overlay 3 lifts
FDR Expanded Asphalt Stabilization + Hot Mix Overlay 1 lift
FDR Expanded Asphalt Stabilization + Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
Mill to Concrete + Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
Rubblize + Hot Mix Overlay 3 lifts
Diamond Grinding ii
New or Reconstruction to AC
New or Reconstruction to PCC
1
0.9
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.9
n/a
n/a
0.9
0.8
1
0.8vii
vii
1.3
Functional Class
Arterial Collector
1
0.9
1
1
1
1
0.9
n/a
0.9
0.9
n/a
n/a
1
n/a
1.4
1
1.5
1
0.9
1
1
n/a
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.8
1
n/a
Notes: n/a not available. All values are based on RoLine Laser measurement.
Page 5 of 52
Local
1
0.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.2
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.81
n/a
n/a

Table 1b: Quebec Recommended Initial IRI (m/km) Inputs Based on Treatments and Facility Type
Treatments
Hot Mix Overlay
Cold in-place recycling + Hot Mix Overlay
Full Depth Reclamation + Hot Mix Overlay
New or Reconstruction to JPCP
New or Reconstruction to CRCP
Highway
National
Other
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
n/a
n/a
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
n/a
n/a
Table 1c: Alberta Recommended Initial IRI (m/km) Inputs Based on Treatments and Facility Type
Treatments
Initial IRI iii
Mill & Inlay or Hot in-place Recycling

Full width Mill & Replace 1 lift
Full width Mill & Replace 2 lifts
Hot Mix Overlay 1 lift
Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
Hot Mix Overlay 3 or more lifts
Reprofile + Hot Mix Overlay 1 lift
Reprofile + Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
Mill & Inlay or Hot in-place Recycling + Hot Mix Overlay 1 lift
Mill & Inlay or Hot in-place Recycling + Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
Mill & Inlay or Hot in-place Recycling + Hot Mix Overlay 3 or more lifts
Cold in-place + Hot Mix Overlay 1 lift
Cold in-place + Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
Full Depth Reclamation with no stabilization + Hot Mix Overlay 1 lift
Full Depth Reclamation with no stabilization + Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
FDR with stabilization + Hot Mix Overlay 1 lift
FDR with stabilization + Hot Mix Overlay 2 lifts
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
Page 6 of 52

Table 1d. Manitoba Recommended Initial IRI (m/km) Inputs Based on Treatments and Facility
Type
FUNCTIONAL CLASS
Treatment
Hot Mix Overlay (1 lift)
Hot Mix Overlay (2 lifts)
Hot Mix Overlay (3 lifts or more)
Mill + Hot Mix Overlay (1 lift)
Mill + Hot Mix Overlay (2 lifts)
Mill + Hot Mix Overlay (3 lifts or more)
Cold-In-Place + Hot Mix Overlay (1 lift)
Cold-In-Place + Hot Mix Overlay (2 lifts)
FDR (Expanded Asphalt) + Hot Mix Overlay
(1 lift)
FDR (Expanded Asphalt) + Hot Mix Overlay
(2 lifts)
Rubblized Concrete + Hot Mix Overlay (3
lifts)
Diamond Grinding (New Concrete Pavement)
New or Reconstruction Asphalt Concrete (2
lifts)
New or Reconstruction Asphalt Concrete (3
lifts or more)
New or Reconstruction Portland Cement
Concrete
Expressway
Primary
Arterial
Secondary
Collector
Arterial
1.1
1
0.9
1
0.9
0.8
N/A
N/A
1.1
1
0.9
1
0.9
0.8
1
0.9
1.1
1
0.9
1
0.9
0.8
1
0.9
1.1
1
0.9
1
0.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.9
0.9
N/A
0.8
N/A
0.8
N/A
0.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
N/A
1.1
1.1
1.1
N/A
Table 2a: Ontario Typical Terminal IRI Inputs Based on Facility Type
Highway Facility Type
Recommended Terminal IRI (m/km)
Freewayvii
Arterial
Collector
Local
Asphalt: 1.9, Concrete: 2.4

Asphalt: 2.3; Concrete: 2.7
2.7
3.3
Page 7 of 52

Table 2b: Quebec Typical Terminal IRI Inputs Based on Facility Type

Highway
National
Regional
Collector
Other
Recommended Terminal IRI

(m/km)
2.2
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.5
Table 2c: Alberta Typical Terminal IRI Inputs Based on AADT
AADT
Recommended Terminal IRI (m/km)
<400
400-1500
1500-6000
6000-8000
>8000
3.0
2.6
2.3
2.1
1.9
Table 2d: Manitoba Terminal IRI Inputs Based on Facility Type
Highway facility Type

Expressways
Primary Arterials
Secondary Arterials
Collectors
Terminal IRI (m/km)

Asphalt Concrete
Portland Cement Concrete
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.7
3
N/A
Page 8 of 52
Table 3a: Ontario AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Performance Criteria (Default Values)
Performance Criteria
Flexible Pavements:
AC top-down fatigue cracking (m/km)
AC bottom-up fatigue cracking (percent)
AC thermal fracture (m/km)

Permanent deformation - total pavement (mm)
Permanent deformation - AC only (mm)
Total Cracking (Reflective + Alligator) (percent)
Rigid Pavements:
JCPC transverse cracking (percent slabs)
Mean joint faulting (mm)
Default Target Values

380 Note 1
Freeway: 10
Arterial: 20
Collector/Local: 35
190
19
6
Note 2
50
Freeway: 10
Arterial: 15
Collector/Local: 20
3
Note 1: Design failure criterion is not well understood; value to be used for information only and not for acceptance
or rejection of a design.
Note 2: Reflective cracks derived from empirical equation of MEPDG and require further calibration for local
conditions; value to be used for information only and not for acceptance or rejection of a design.
Page 9 of 52
Table 3b: Quebec Interim AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Performance Criteria Default
Values
Flexible Pavements:
AC bottom-up fatigue cracking (percent)

Permanent deformation - total pavement
(mm)
Permanent deformation - AC only (mm)
Total Cracking (Reflective + Alligator)
(percent)
Default Target
Values
380*
Highway: 10
National: 15
Regional: 20
Collector: 25
Other: 30
200
12
12
100*
Rigid Pavements:
CRCP Punchouts (nb/km)
6
JPCP transverse cracking (percent slabs)
8
JPCP Mean joint faulting (mm)
3
* Design failure criteria not well understood; value to be used for
information only and not for acceptance or rejection of a design
Page 10 of 52
Table 3c: Alberta AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Performance Criteria Default Values
Default Target Values
Flexible Pavements:
AC top-down fatigue cracking
(m/km)
AC bottom-up fatigue cracking
(percent)
380*
<400
400-1500
AADT
1500-6000
30

Permanent deformation - total
pavement (mm)
Permanent deformation - AC
only (mm)
Total Cracking (Reflective +
Alligator) (percent)
25
20
New Construction
20-yr Design ESALs >6.0E+06
30 (4 cracks/km)**
15
60008000
15
>8000
15
All Other
225 (30 cracks/km)**
15
50*
Rigid Pavements:
JCPC transverse cracking

(percent slabs)
TBD
TBD
* Failure criteria not well understood; value to be used for information only and not for acceptance or rejection of a
design
** Assuming 7.5 m road width
Note: These performance criteria default target values recommended by AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design.
The table below shows the reliability levels based on different highway type.
Page 11 of 52
Table 3d. Manitoba AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Performance Criteria for Manitoba
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS:
AC bottom-up fatigue cracking (%)
Expressway
Primary/Secondary Arterials
Collector
Permanent deformation -total pavement (mm)
Permanent deformation -AC only (mm)
Total Cracking (Reflective + Alligator) (%)
RIGID PAVEMENTS:
JPCP transverse cracking (% slab) Expressway
Collector
Target Values
Ignore
15
20
25
200
19
12
50
10
15
N/A
3
Page 12 of 52
Table 4a: Ontario Recommended Design Reliability Levels iv
Highway Functional Class
Recommended Range of Reliability Levels (%)
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
Urban: 95; Rural: 95

Urban: 75; Rural 75
Table 4b: Quebec Recommended Design Reliability Levels
AADT
Local
Regional and Collector
National
Highway
< 1 000
> 1 000
< 2 000
2 000 3 000
> 3 000
< 5 000
5 000 20 000
> 20 000
< 20 000
> 20 000
Recommended
Reliability Level
66 %
70 %
70 %
75 %
80 %
80 %
85 %
90 %
90 %
95 %
Table 4c: Alberta Recommended Design Reliability Levels v
Reliability
20-yr Design ESAL
<0.1 Million
0.1 - 5.0 Million
5.0 - 10.0 Million
10.0 - 20.0 Million
>20.0 Million
New
Construction
75%
85%
90%
95%
95%
Final Pave
Rehabilitation
75%
75%
85%
90%
95%
50%
50%
75%
85%
90%
Page 13 of 52

Table 4b: Manitoba Recommended Design Reliability Levels
Functional Class
Expressways
Collectors
Reliability Levels (%)

Urban
Rural
90
90
85
90
80
80
Page 14 of 52
3.0
Traffic
3.1
AADTT
The traffic input for AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design is more comprehensive than the input
parameters used in AASHTO 93. Besides the Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT)
as the major input, other traffic inputs include vehicle class distribution, axle load spectrum, axle
configuration and spacing, and monthly/hourly adjustment factors.
Where possible, the AADTT (Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic), number of lanes in design
direction, and operational speed should be project specific. The percentage of truck in design
direction is usually 50%, unless there is more project specific information available. Tables 5
provide the recommended percentage of trucks in design lane from the Canadian agencies.
Table 5a: Ontario Recommended Percentage of Trucks in Design Lane vi
Number of Lanes in
One Direction
AADT (both directions)
Percentage of Trucks
in Design Lane (%)
1
2
All
<15,000
>15,000
<25,000
25,000 to 40,000
>40,000
<40,000
>40,000
<50,000
>50,000
100
90
80
80
70
60
70
60
60
60
4
5
Table 5b. Manitoba Recommended Percentage of Trucks in Design Lane
Configuration
AADTT
DLF
Two-lane highway
Two-way
0.5
Four-lane highway
Two-way
0.4
Four-lane highway
One-way
0.8
Page 15 of 52
3.2
Traffic Capacity
Because specific traffic capacity information is not available, the AASHTOWare Pavement ME
Design default of not enforced should be selected.
3.3
Axle Configuration
Tables 6 and 7 provide the defaults values for the axle configuration and axle spacing
information.
Table 6: AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Defaults Axle Configuration
Axle Configuration
Default Values
Average axle width (m)

Dual tire spacing (mm)
Tire pressure (kPa)
2.59
305
827.4
Table 7: Ontario Typical Defaults for Axle Spacingvii
3.4
Axle type
Average axle spacing within axle group, m
Tandem
Tridem
Quad
1.45
1.68
1.32
Lateral Wander
Table 8 identifies the default values obtained from AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design that are
the same as Ontarios default condition based on the 2002 Commercial Vehicle Survey (CVS)
study.
Table 8: AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Default Lateral Traffic Wander
Factors
Default Values
Mean wheel location (mm)

Traffic wander standard deviation (mm)
Design lane width (m)
460
254
3.75Note 1
Note 1: Use 3.75m for new pavement design. Otherwise, input the existing design lane width.
Page 16 of 52
3.5
Wheelbase
Table 9 lists the default axle spacing and the corresponding truck percentages for Ontario.
Typically, short trucks are Class 5, medium single unit trucks (Class 6 and 7) and long trucks
Classes 8 to 13.
Table 9: Ontario Typical Defaults Spacing Between Major Axle Groups vii
3.6
Truck type
Average axle spacing

between axle groups, m
Percent of trucks
Short
Medium
Long
5.1
4.6
4.7
33
33
34
Vehicle Class Distribution and Growth
The vehicle class distribution should be site specific. Users can either select the default set
(Level 3) of vehicle class distribution for a Truck Traffic Classification (TTC) group that best
describes the truck traffic mix of the project or directly enter project-specific or regional default
values (Levels 1 and 2) in the Distribution column. (refer to Section 3.9 MTO iCorridor).
Volume distribution differs throughout the year. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design allows
the user to incorporate details of the traffic volume distribution on a monthly basis by inputting
the monthly adjustment factors. Hourly distribution is also available for user input (only for the
rigid pavement design). Table 10 provides the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design default
values for traffic volume distribution factors.
Table 10: AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Default Traffic Distribution Factors
3.7
Traffic Factors
Default Values
Monthly adjustment
Hourly Distribution
Traffic Growth Factor
1.0
default
Site specific values
(usually 2 to 4% compounded)
Axles Per Truck
Tables 11 and 12 are axle per truck tables based on the outcome of the CVS 2006 study for
Southern and Northern Ontario. They represent Level 2 or Level 3 data entry for regional areas.
Level 1 site-specific data entry is also available using the data provided in iCorridor (refer to
Section 3.9 MTO iCorridor).
Page 17 of 52

Table 11: Southern Ontario Typical Axle Per Trucks Table
FHWA
Class
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Singles
Tandems
Tridems
Quads
Total
1.620
2.000
1.010
1.314
2.163
1.055
1.446
4.546
2.857
1.201
0.390
0.000
0.993
0.989
0.845
1.968
1.234
0.168
1.526
2.058
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.000
0.003
0.700
0.000
0.000
0.848
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.088
0.000
0.000
0.024
2.400
2.000
2.996
3.382
3.853
5.000
6.366
4.882
5.909
7.957
Table 12: Northern Ontario Typical Axle Per Trucks Table

FHWA
Class
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Singles
Tandems
Tridems
Quads
Total
1.620
2.000
1.014
1.244
2.414
1.048
1.358
3.849
2.910
1.100
0.390
0.000
0.993
0.962
0.674
1.955
1.165
0.538
1.514
2.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.014
0.840
0.000
0.021
0.945
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.044
0.000
0.000
0.011
2.400
2.000
3.000
3.297
3.762
5.000
6.384
4.925
6.001
8.003
Page 18 of 52
3.8
Axle Load Distribution Tables
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design has a list of default axle load distribution for various
facility types, but it may not reflect local conditions. MTO has developed the following axle
load spectrum tables identifying various FHWA vehicle classes and axle types based on the
entire 2006 CVS data.
Tables 13 and 17:

Tables 14 and 18:
Tables 15 and 19:
Tables 16 and 20:
Single Axle Distribution

Tandem Axle Distribution
Tridem Axle Distribution
Quad Axle Distribution
The axle load distribution tables are divided for Southern and Northern Ontario because
significant differences are found in the distribution patterns between Southern and Northern
Ontario for most of the FHWA vehicle classes. When sufficient CVS data is available within a
subject Linear Highway Referencing System (LHRS) sections, site specific axle load distribution
(Level 1) can also be generated through iCorridor. Although these Level 1 data give a noncontinuous axle load distribution for certain axle types, it can provide a more representative axle
load data for the subject LHRS sections (refer Section 3.9 MTO iCorridor). Other Canadian
agencies should develop similar traffic load spectrum to be used in the Pavement ME Design.
Page 19 of 52
Table 13: Southern Ontario Single Axle Load Distribution Table

Axle Weight, kg
BIN
RANGE
1000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
10,000
10,500
11,000
11,500
12,000
12,500
13,000
13,500
14,000
14,500
15,000
15,500
16,000
16,500
17,000
17,500
18,000
18,500
19,000
19,500
20,000
0 to 1249
1250 to 1749
1750 to 2249
2250 to 2749
2750 to 3249
3250 to 3749
3750 to 4249
4250 to 4749
4750 to 5249
5250 to 5749
5750 to 6249
6250 to 6749
6750 to 7249
7250 to 7749
7750 to 8249
8250 to 8749
8750 to 9249
9250 to 9749
9750 to 10249
10250 to 10749
10750 to 11249
11250 to 11749
11750 to 12249
12250 to 12749
12750 to 13249
13250 to 13749
13750 to 14249
14250 to 14749
14750 to 15249
15250 to 15749
15750 to 16249
16250 to 16749
16750 to 17249
17250 to 17749
17750 to 18249
18250 to 18749
18750 to 19249
19250 to 19749
19750 to 22749
Total
Frequency of a given axle weight range as a percentage

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.80
0.96
2.91
3.99
6.80
12.00
11.70
11.40
10.30
9.00
7.40
5.70
4.30
3.20
2.58
1.80
1.40
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.15
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.07
0.33
5.40
7.52
6.65
11.32
13.98
13.94
10.71
10.46
5.04
4.36
2.28
1.95
1.65
1.25
0.80
0.73
0.50
0.51
0.27
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.14
0.89
0.73
0.95
2.12
4.73
13.96
18.40
24.84
10.66
8.60
4.54
3.67
1.45
1.54
1.37
0.42
0.36
0.23
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.70
0.87
0.96
1.51
3.14
5.10
8.07
3.70
9.64
11.08
13.64
11.34
6.99
5.97
3.87
5.90
2.27
1.73
0.23
0.25
0.47
0.04
0.18
0.11
0.00
0.06
0.22
0.13
0.02
0.23
0.09
0.00
0.37
0.06
0.16
0.09
0.42
0.42
2.13
2.43
3.55
7.82
7.20
19.16
13.03
11.20
3.96
6.09
5.70
3.76
2.12
3.03
1.45
1.57
1.41
0.95
0.59
0.26
0.18
0.31
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.32
0.11
0.12
0.05
0.14
0.13
0.08
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.10
0.62
0.43
0.44
0.62
1.22
10.40
22.56
40.89
14.54
3.05
1.04
0.92
0.90
0.83
0.49
0.28
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.39
0.17
0.44
0.89
0.93
1.44
1.48
4.39
12.86
28.90
15.17
6.91
3.37
3.46
3.14
3.46
2.87
3.12
1.96
1.55
1.15
0.38
0.35
0.23
0.11
0.10
0.13
0.10
0.05
0.13
0.10
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.10
0.09
0.57
1.69
6.75
5.58
4.29
11.03
14.92
11.09
7.09
10.44
7.90
6.14
3.66
2.95
1.75
0.87
0.66
0.38
0.14
0.43
0.19
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.18
0.07
0.18
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
1.10
0.02
3.22
8.16
8.73
8.70
14.49
15.75
15.01
6.42
5.54
4.18
2.13
1.42
1.03
0.32
0.83
0.00
0.10
0.08
0.11
0.19
0.71
1.27
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.44
0.63
0.85
1.21
1.14
1.02
0.99
4.93
12.59
33.61
17.86
8.99
3.33
2.35
1.29
1.58
1.08
2.32
0.72
0.98
0.49
0.21
0.18
0.08
0.17
0.06
0.18
0.00
0.09
0.24
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.12
0.01
0.04
0.00
0.02
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page 20 of 52

Table 14: Southern Ontario Tandem Axle Load Distribution Table
Axle Weight, kg
BIN
RANGE
2000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
23,000
24,000
25,000
26,000
27,000
28,000
29,000
30,000
31,000
32,000
33,000
34,000
35,000
36,000
37,000
38,000
39,000
40,000
0 to 2449
2500 to 3449
3500 to 4449
4500 to 5449
5500 to 6449
6500 to 7449
7500 to 8449
8500 to 9449
9500 to 10449
10500 to 11449
11500 to 12449
12500 to 13449
13500 to 14449
14500 to 15449
15500 to 16449
16500 to 17449
17500 to 18449
18500 to 19449
19500 to 20449
20500 to 21449
21500 to 22449
22500 to 23449
23500 to 24449
24500 to 25449
25500 to 26449
26500 to 27449
27500 to 28449
28500 to 29449
29500 to 30449
30500 to 31449
31500 to 32449
32500 to 33449
33500 to 34449
34500 to 35449
35500 to 36449
36500 to 37449
37500 to 38449
38500 to 39449
39500 to 40449
Total

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
5.28
10.00
11.90
9.63
8.00
7.80
6.80
6.15
5.80
5.30
4.70
4.10
3.33
3.91
2.22
1.84
1.44
0.90
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
4.13
23.50
5.98
7.90
8.95
8.92
8.53
5.77
5.74
4.03
2.99
2.95
1.76
1.65
1.98
0.54
0.77
0.51
0.52
0.52
0.42
0.27
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.75
1.24
2.44
4.83
13.24
12.21
9.02
4.01
7.10
6.90
3.49
2.48
2.11
3.53
1.82
2.12
5.29
4.89
3.64
3.53
1.47
1.44
0.34
0.12
0.37
0.27
0.08
0.31
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.04
4.02
3.89
3.99
16.68
16.58
16.90
10.77
10.58
6.35
3.29
1.63
1.48
1.17
0.60
0.66
0.89
0.35
0.10
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
100
100
100
0.24
0.52
2.43
7.60
8.85
7.84
7.95
8.24
7.45
6.63
5.87
5.60
5.79
7.31
8.91
5.61
1.71
0.77
0.31
0.15
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.87
1.46
2.61
6.73
9.25
7.71
5.65
4.62
3.67
3.41
3.99
5.04
5.70
7.03
8.50
7.60
6.04
4.56
2.11
1.12
0.73
0.30
0.21
0.11
0.20
0.14
0.09
0.03
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
100
100
13
0.00
7.65
10.35
11.54
6.55
5.05
9.90
9.52
13.19
8.52
0.00
4.20
4.57
1.76
1.58
3.49
0.00
0.00
1.44
0.00
0.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
1.17
2.59
9.53
10.47
9.39
13.51
11.91
13.83
6.91
4.29
6.09
2.19
1.72
1.33
1.02
0.38
1.33
1.63
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.54
3.19
6.79
5.34
7.17
4.82
3.36
2.92
2.51
2.11
2.30
3.06
2.97
4.46
6.63
10.12
10.96
9.82
5.24
1.87
1.35
0.61
0.43
0.41
0.43
0.29
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.10
100
100
100
Page 21 of 52

Table 15: Southern Ontario Tridem Axle Load Distribution Table
Axle Weight, kg
BIN
RANGE
4500
6,000
7,500
9,000
10,500
12,000
13,500
15,000
16,500
18,000
19,500
21,000
22,500
24,000
25,500
27,000
28,500
30,000
31,500
33,000
34,500
36,000
37,500
39,000
40,500
42,000
43,500
45,000
46,500
48,000
49,500

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 to 5249
5250 to 6749
6750 to 8249
8250 to 9749
9750 to 11249
11250 to 12749
12750 to 14249
14250 to 15749
15750 to 17249
17250 to 18749
18750 to 20249
20250 to 21749
21750 to 23249
23250 to 24749
24750 to 26249
26250 to 27749
27750 to 29249
29250 to 30749
30750 to 32249
32250 to 33749
33750 to 35249
35250 to 36749
36750 to 38249
38250 to 39749
39750 to 41249
41250 to 42749
42750 to 44249
44250 to 45749
45750 to 47249
47250 to 48749
48750 to 52749
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.26
9.29
10.96
0.30
14.23
1.97
4.54
2.12
12.24
0.64
0.00
0.50
0.00
9.88
3.00
6.69
9.24
4.56
5.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
39.94
7.55
19.96
5.90
0.67
5.34
2.18
8.20
3.58
1.74
3.42
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
100
4.98
9.65
9.53
7.21
5.21
5.07
4.39
4.32
4.56
4.82
5.87
5.44
6.96
6.31
5.68
4.50
2.20
1.25
0.60
0.32
0.31
0.25
0.28
0.11
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.50
11.02
6.55
3.69
2.44
2.29
2.18
4.16
4.46
4.54
3.90
7.33
11.94
14.87
8.24
3.49
1.43
0.34
0.35
0.16
0.04
0.01
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
Page 22 of 52

Table 16: Southern Ontario Quad Axle Load Distribution Table
Axle Weight, kg
BIN
RANGE
4500
6,000
7,500
9,000
10,500
12,000
13,500
15,000
16,500
18,000
19,500
21,000
22,500
24,000
25,500
27,000
28,500
30,000
31,500
33,000
34,500
36,000
37,500
39,000
40,500
42,000
43,500
45,000
46,500
48,000
49,500

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 to 5249
5250 to 6749
6750 to 8249
8250 to 9749
9750 to 11249
11250 to 12749
12750 to 14249
14250 to 15749
15750 to 17249
17250 to 18749
18750 to 20249
20250 to 21749
21750 to 23249
23250 to 24749
24750 to 26249
26250 to 27749
27750 to 29249
29250 to 30749
30750 to 32249
32250 to 33749
33750 to 35249
35250 to 36749
36750 to 38249
38250 to 39749
39750 to 41249
41250 to 42749
42750 to 44249
44250 to 45749
45750 to 47249
47250 to 48749
48750 to 52749
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.25
4.16
6.17
6.06
4.70
5.89
3.56
2.04
2.87
2.37
3.58
3.03
5.41
6.94
8.55
6.94
4.36
3.84
3.72
3.79
3.12
3.61
1.50
0.79
0.35
1.02
0.16
0.06
0.16
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.32
8.96
13.83
5.35
0.75
0.00
2.19
2.96
13.84
0.82
3.16
8.64
2.03
5.77
11.63
7.89
0.24
0.38
0.00
0.00
3.09
4.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
Page 23 of 52

Table 17: Northern Ontario Single Axle Load Distribution Table
Axle Weight, kg
BIN
RANGE
1000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
10,000
10,500
11,000
11,500
12,000
12,500
13,000
13,500
14,000
14,500
15,000
15,500
16,000
16,500
17,000
17,500
18,000
18,500
19,000
19,500
20,000

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 to 1249
1250 to 1749
1750 to 2249
2250 to 2749
2750 to 3249
3250 to 3749
3750 to 4249
4250 to 4749
4750 to 5249
5250 to 5749
5750 to 6249
6250 to 6749
6750 to 7249
7250 to 7749
7750 to 8249
8250 to 8749
8750 to 9249
9250 to 9749
9750 to 10249
10250 to 10749
10750 to 11249
11250 to 11749
11750 to 12249
12250 to 12749
12750 to 13249
13250 to 13749
13750 to 14249
14250 to 14749
14750 to 15249
15250 to 15749
15750 to 16249
16250 to 16749
16750 to 17249
17250 to 17749
17750 to 18249
18250 to 18749
18750 to 19249
19250 to 19749
19750 to 22749
1.80
0.96
2.91
3.99
6.80
12.00
11.70
11.40
10.30
9.00
7.40
5.70
4.30
3.20
2.58
1.80
1.40
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.15
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.20
0.61
11.58
10.37
8.26
11.40
11.52
12.33
8.79
8.64
3.72
2.32
3.04
1.53
0.62
1.66
1.14
0.90
0.51
0.12
0.05
0.42
0.15
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.47
0.35
0.09
7.08
8.11
10.21
14.42
30.26
9.15
5.20
4.34
3.12
2.29
1.45
1.62
1.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.03
0.17
0.32
3.28
5.52
3.80
9.29
23.71
9.42
17.49
4.60
2.23
4.85
4.02
6.21
1.78
1.16
0.29
0.25
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
2.14
1.88
5.38
6.19
7.42
9.96
13.50
13.60
7.22
8.18
2.61
4.02
3.75
4.88
3.01
1.26
0.74
1.42
0.17
0.00
0.79
0.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.82
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.09
0.61
0.42
0.22
0.77
1.20
4.72
11.71
42.47
23.52
4.64
2.47
1.94
1.40
0.66
0.69
0.38
0.24
0.25
1.20
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.20
0.66
0.66
1.61
2.06
2.21
3.17
9.34
27.56
19.40
8.64
3.75
3.57
3.00
3.31
3.19
2.37
1.10
1.19
0.76
0.27
0.10
0.29
0.35
0.17
0.07
0.04
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
5.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.59
0.00
1.96
6.93
16.96
4.48
10.05
1.96
13.96
13.47
0.00
7.03
0.00
7.03
3.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.59
0.00
2.59
1.27
2.50
6.41
4.29
12.67
5.81
22.17
14.30
6.63
8.89
1.44
0.00
1.04
3.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.26
1.25
0.59
0.00
1.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.46
0.58
0.61
1.04
1.13
1.47
3.71
12.37
33.59
25.58
10.57
1.60
1.41
0.91
1.67
0.84
0.91
0.22
0.21
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.12
0.23
0.03
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page 24 of 52

Table 18: Northern Ontario Tandem Axle Load Distribution Table
Axle Weight, kg
BIN
RANGE
2000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
23,000
24,000
25,000
26,000
27,000
28,000
29,000
30,000
31,000
32,000
33,000
34,000
35,000
36,000
37,000
38,000
39,000
40,000
0 to 2449
2500 to 3449
3500 to 4449
4500 to 5449
5500 to 6449
6500 to 7449
7500 to 8449
8500 to 9449
9500 to 10449
10500 to 11449
11500 to 12449
12500 to 13449
13500 to 14449
14500 to 15449
15500 to 16449
16500 to 17449
17500 to 18449
18500 to 19449
19500 to 20449
20500 to 21449
21500 to 22449
22500 to 23449
23500 to 24449
24500 to 25449
25500 to 26449
26500 to 27449
27500 to 28449
28500 to 29449
29500 to 30449
30500 to 31449
31500 to 32449
32500 to 33449
33500 to 34449
34500 to 35449
35500 to 36449
36500 to 37449
37500 to 38449
38500 to 39449
39500 to 40449
Total

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
5.28
10.00
11.90
9.63
8.00
7.80
6.80
6.15
5.80
5.30
4.70
4.10
3.33
3.91
2.22
1.84
1.44
0.90
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.55
24.63
9.79
3.94
8.59
10.85
10.84
3.29
2.27
0.67
5.02
2.54
1.36
0.83
3.29
2.65
1.23
1.65
1.86
0.70
0.32
0.77
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
2.82
0.32
0.81
24.47
10.08
6.24
19.07
2.01
0.78
1.69
1.16
0.84
1.19
0.66
3.59
5.49
1.82
3.33
3.68
2.58
0.26
2.59
1.19
0.05
2.53
0.27
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.81
3.76
12.00
16.34
27.43
12.08
0.81
6.21
4.91
1.98
1.98
0.64
0.00
0.00
5.54
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.29
1.26
3.61
4.77
5.48
4.86
6.40
6.58
8.89
8.71
8.43
6.32
8.48
10.65
7.85
3.73
1.71
0.61
0.34
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.08
0.11
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.51
1.20
1.78
2.37
3.98
7.60
6.11
6.43
3.44
4.85
3.85
3.85
5.20
5.62
6.54
9.18
7.84
6.42
5.47
2.61
1.34
1.65
0.37
0.41
0.21
0.59
0.33
0.00
0.10
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
39.95
60.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.13
0.00
3.70
6.17
7.23
10.13
17.36
19.40
6.54
3.84
5.44
5.34
0.00
6.26
0.00
6.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.92
4.36
6.47
4.46
7.05
5.43
1.86
1.75
1.45
1.70
1.33
2.28
3.17
4.45
10.30
11.82
14.14
9.13
3.66
1.32
0.67
0.37
0.32
0.13
0.33
0.07
0.85
0.05
0.09
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page 25 of 52

Table 19: Northern Ontario Tridem Axle Load Distribution Table
Axle Weight, kg
BIN
RANGE
4500
6,000
7,500
9,000
10,500
12,000
13,500
15,000
16,500
18,000
19,500
21,000
22,500
24,000
25,500
27,000
28,500
30,000
31,500
33,000
34,500
36,000
37,500
39,000
40,500
42,000
43,500
45,000
46,500
48,000
49,500

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 to 5249
5250 to 6749
6750 to 8249
8250 to 9749
9750 to 11249
11250 to 12749
12750 to 14249
14250 to 15749
15750 to 17249
17250 to 18749
18750 to 20249
20250 to 21749
21750 to 23249
23250 to 24749
24750 to 26249
26250 to 27749
27750 to 29249
29250 to 30749
30750 to 32249
32250 to 33749
33750 to 35249
35250 to 36749
36750 to 38249
38250 to 39749
39750 to 41249
41250 to 42749
42750 to 44249
44250 to 45749
45750 to 47249
47250 to 48749
48750 to 52749
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.16
0.00
44.60
9.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.18
12.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.03
5.16
0.00
0.19
0.85
5.33
1.04
77.00
0.13
0.00
2.79
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
100
5.26
7.54
8.63
6.67
4.91
4.48
4.85
5.07
5.21
4.96
7.72
6.05
5.54
6.90
5.38
4.27
2.05
1.57
0.98
0.87
0.47
0.29
0.18
0.09
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
100
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.63
13.67
6.55
2.23
2.02
1.16
1.75
2.42
3.41
4.27
4.74
10.07
13.11
17.57
6.99
2.47
0.51
0.48
0.27
0.07
0.55
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
100
Page 26 of 52

Table 20: Northern Ontario Quad Axle Load Distribution Table
Axle Weight, kg
BIN
RANGE
4500
6,000
7,500
9,000
10,500
12,000
13,500
15,000
16,500
18,000
19,500
21,000
22,500
24,000
25,500
27,000
28,500
30,000
31,500
33,000
34,500
36,000
37,500
39,000
40,500
42,000
43,500
45,000
46,500
48,000
49,500

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 to 5249
5250 to 6749
6750 to 8249
8250 to 9749
9750 to 11249
11250 to 12749
12750 to 14249
14250 to 15749
15750 to 17249
17250 to 18749
18750 to 20249
20250 to 21749
21750 to 23249
23250 to 24749
24750 to 26249
26250 to 27749
27750 to 29249
29250 to 30749
30750 to 32249
32250 to 33749
33750 to 35249
35250 to 36749
36750 to 38249
38250 to 39749
39750 to 41249
41250 to 42749
42750 to 44249
44250 to 45749
45750 to 47249
47250 to 48749
48750 to 52749
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.18
5.32
10.24
5.20
2.00
3.36
2.61
2.12
4.23
2.47
1.01
0.23
7.58
3.05
4.19
7.42
3.19
5.90
6.43
5.29
4.38
8.46
1.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.82
9.55
3.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.12
6.44
3.85
9.36
0.00
0.00
3.41
2.40
45.88
0.09
6.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
0.00
100
Page 27 of 52
3.9
MTO iCorridor
Ontario has developed a web-based mapping program called iCorridor to allow users to use a
map interface to view the data behind each link, with an option to download the information.
One of the modules in iCorridor provides site specific traffic data (Level 1) such as AADTT,
vehicle class distribution, number of axle per truck, and axle load distribution for AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design. This program can generate the following three data files for any specific
LHRS sections:
Traffic data input file in XML format that contains the AADTT, vehicle class
distribution, axle per truck, and axle spacing & configuration.
Axle load spectrum file in ALF format that contains the axle load spectrum tables of
single, tandem, tridem and quad axle types.
A summary file in spreadsheet format that contains the above traffic data.
The above XMF and ALF files can be directly input into AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
to run the analysis. If traffic data is insufficient within the LHRS section, the tables for Southern
or Northern Ontario will be generated.
The hyperlink to MTO iCorridor is: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/iCorridor/
Figure 1 is a screen capture for the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design traffic data module of
iCorridor. Follow the five steps below to access and download the traffic files.
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Click Provincial Highway at the side menu on the left.

Click Traffic Data for AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design under the top dropdown menu.
Choose NON-DIRECTIONAL option. (typical case)
Zoom in to the map and click on the LHRS pavement section to be selected.
Right-click on the file name and click Save Target As at the pop-up menu to
download the file to the user defined directory.
NON-DIRECTIONAL option will provide an overall AADT and AADTT of the selected LHRS
section in both directions. The pavement designer should enter the corresponding percent split
of traffic volume for the design direction (typical 50%) to the Percent trucks in design direction
field.
DIRECTIONAL option will provide the AADT and AADTT of the specific direction of the
selected LHRS section, and the designer requires to enter 100% to the Percent trucks in design
direction field. Note that the designer requires to zoom in very close to the map in order to
identify which direction to be chosen. Under rare circumstances should the designer require to
select this option.
Page 28 of 52
Figure 1: Ontario iCorridor - Screen Capture
Page 29 of 52
4.0
Climate
Climate information available from Environment Canada has been processed for use in
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design. The user need only to select the appropriate weather
station and all relevant information is provided in the weather station file. And the weather data
will be updated by AASHTO periodically.
Below is a map showing the locations of the 34 weather stations in Ontario. Due to limited
functionality of the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design weather station interpolation function,
it is recommended that the closest weather station to the project be selected for analysis.
Below is the link to the map where you can easily identify the locations and names of the
weather stations in Ontario.
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=208266981848406862188.0004b3215876ff4d25ee7&msa
=0
Figure 2: Location of the 34 Ontario Climate Stations
Page 30 of 52
Ontarios Default Parameters for AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Interim Report
Table 21: Ontario Climate Stations - Detailed Information
Station
15801
94932
15806
94862
94797
94864
94888
94803
14998
04797
14899
14999
94799
94805
94857
15804
04705
04772
04706
54706
94842
94858
15909
04713
94828
Station Name
ARMSTRONG| ON
ATIKOKAN| ON
BIG TROUT LAKE|
ON
CHAPLEAU| ON
EARLTON| ON
GERALDTON| ON
GERALDTON| ON
GORE BAY| ON
GRAHAM| ON
HAMILTON| ON
KAPUSKASING| ON
KENORA| ON
KILLALOE| ON
LONDON| ON
MOUNT FOREST| ON
NAKINA| ON
NORTH BAY| ON
OTTAWA| ON
OTTAWA| ON
PETAWAWA| ON
SAULT STE MARIE|
ON
SIMCOE| ON
SIOUX LOOKOUT|
ON
STIRLING| ON
SUDBURY| ON
Location
ARMSTRONG AIRPORT
ATIKOKAN
Latitude
50.294
48.750
Longitude
-88.905
-91.617
BIG TROUT LAKE

CHAPLEAU
EARLTON AIRPORT
GERALDTON
GERALDTON AIRPORT
GORE BAY AIRPORT
GRAHAM AIRPORT
HAMILTON AIRPORT
KAPUSKASING AIRPORT
KENORA AIRPORT
KILLALOE
LONDON AIRPORT
MOUNT FOREST
NAKINA AIRPORT
NORTH BAY AIRPORT
MACDONALD-CARTIER
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
OTTAWA ROCKCLIFFE AIRPORT
PETAWAWA AIRPORT
53.833
47.833
47.700
49.700
49.783
45.883
49.267
43.172
49.414
49.790
45.567
43.033
43.983
50.183
46.364
-89.867
-83.433
-79.850
-86.950
-86.931
-82.567
-90.583
-79.934
-82.468
-94.365
-77.417
-81.151
-80.750
-86.700
-79.423
45.323
45.450
45.950
-75.669
-75.633
-77.317
SAULT STE MARIE AIRPORT

SIMCOE
46.483
42.850
-84.509
-80.267
SIOUX LOOKOUT AIRPORT

STIRLING
SUDBURY AIRPORT
50.117
44.317
46.625
-91.900
-77.633
-80.799
Elevation
(m)
322
395
224
428
243
331
349
194
503
238
226
410
174
278
415
325
370
114
54
130
192
240
383
139
347
Period From
(yyyymmdd)
19530101
19661001
Period To
(yyyymmdd)
19680630
19860930
19700101
19651101
19591001
19671101
19870701
19711001
19530101
20070101
19870701
19870701
19530101
19740201
19620101
19530101
19740201
19891231
19760331
19790930
19770331
20070630
19910930
19661231
20111231
20070630
20070630
19720731
19940131
19760731
19671031
19940131
19870101
19530101
19730701
20070630
19640331
19930630
19870701
19620101
20070630
19770731
19870701
19530101
19870701
20070630
19681130
20070630
Page 31 of 52
Station
94804
94831
54753
94791
04715
94808
94809
94810
15807
Station Name
THUNDER BAY| ON
TIMMINS| ON
TORONTO| ON
TORONTO| ON
TRENTON| ON
WHITE RIVER| ON
WIARTON| ON
WINDSOR| ON
WINISK| ON
Location
THUNDER BAY AIRPORT
VICTOR POWER AIRPORT
BUTTONVILLE AIRPORT
LESTER B. PEARSON
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
TRENTON AIRPORT
WHITE RIVER
WIARTON AIRPORT
WINDSOR AIRPORT
WINISK AIRPORT
Latitude
48.369
48.570
43.862
Longitude
-89.327
-81.377
-79.370
43.677
44.117
48.600
44.746
42.276
55.233
-79.631
-77.533
-85.283
-81.107
-82.956
-85.117
Elevation
(m)
199
295
198
173
86
379
222
190
13
Period From
(yyyymmdd)
19740101
19740701
19870701
Period To
(yyyymmdd)
19931231
19940630
20070630
19870701
19350101
19560101
19750701
19750701
19590201
20070630
19940531
19751231
19950630
19950630
19650630
Page 32 of 52
5.0
Structure Layers Information
5.1
HMA Properties
The mix properties presented (Level 3) are based on previous contract mix design information.
Tables 22, 23 and 24 provide individual hot mix type properties from the Canadian agencies.
For the AC layer properties and thermal cracking inputs, the default values from AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design should be used in the design until further study is completed.
Regarding the pre-overlay rutting, if no project specific information is available, an average
value of 7 mm for existing rut depth prior to overlay should be used. viii
Page 33 of 52

Table 22a: Ontario Typical SuperPave and SMA Asphalt Concrete Properties
Asphalt Layers
Thickness (mm)
Mixture Volumetric
Unit Weight (kg/m3)
Effective Binder Content - by Volume (%)
Air Voids (%) Note 2
Poissons Ratio Note 3
Mechanical Properties
Dynamic Modulus
Aggregate
% Passing the 19 mm Sieve
Gradation
% Passing the 9.5 mm Sieve
% Passing the 75 m Sieve
G Star Predictive Model
Reference Temperature
Asphalt Binder Note 4
Indirect Tensile Strength 10 deg.C (MPa)
Creep Compliance (1/GPa)
Thermal
Thermal Conductivity (watt/meter-Kelvin)
Heat Capacity (joule/kg-Kelvin)
Thermal Contraction
SP 12.5
See Note 1
11.8
SP 19.0
SP 25.0
Project specific
2460
11.2
2469
10.4
SMA 12.5
See Note 1
14.6
7.0
0.35 for existing HMA (select calculated for new HMA)
Input level: 3 selected
100 %
96.9 %
89.1 %
100.0 %
83.2 %
72.5 %
63.3 %
73.1 %
54 %
52.8 %
49.3 %
29.7 %
4%
3.9 %
3.8 %
9.3 %
Use viscosity based model (nationally calibrated) selected
21.1 C
PG 64-28
PG 58-28
PG 58-28
PG 70-28
Calculated
1.16
963
Calculated
Note 1: For SP 12.5, the unit weight is 2,460 kg/m3. For SP 12.5FC1, FC2 and SMA 12.5, unit weight varies from different regions: Central and North
regions 2,520 kg/m3; East region 2,390 kg/m3; West region 2,530 kg/m3
Note 2: For existing HMA layers, should use measured in-situ air voids.
Note 3: For new HMA mixtures, use calculated Poissons ratio by expanding the row on Poissons ratio and set to true. For the row on Is Poissons
Ratio calculated? Refer to Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide Table 11-3 for other reference temperatures and open-graded
HMA Poisson ratios.
Note 4: Typical PG shown only; PGAC varies based on locations and traffic loading conditions. Refer to MTO SuperPave Guide to select the proper
PGAC grade.
Pavement ME Design User Group
Page 34 of 52

Table 22b: Quebec Typical Hot Mix Asphalt Properties
Asphalt Layers
Thickness (mm)
Mixture Volumetric
Unit Weight (kg/m3)1
Air Voids (%)2
Poissons Ratio
Dynamic Modulus
Aggregate
Gradation
Asphalt Binder3
Thermal
Thermal Contraction
GB-20
2390
10.2
ESG-14
ESG-10
Project specific
2360
11.4
2350
12.2
EG-10
2370
12.4
7.0
0.35
98 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
64 %
80 %
96 %
95 %
42 %
50 %
58 %
46 %
4.9 %
5.3 %
5.7 %
5.6 %
21.1 C
PG 64-28 PG 64-28 / 70-28 PG 64-28 / 70-28 PG 70-28
PG 58-34 PG 58-34 / 64-34 PG 58-34 / 64-34 PG 64-34
Calculated
1.48
870
Calculated
Note 1: Based on 7% air voids.

Note 2: Maximum air voids but usually less.
Note 3: PG is selected according to climatic zone and traffic level.
Page 35 of 52
Table 22c: Edmonton Typical SuperPave and SMA Asphalt Concrete Properties
Asphalt Layers
Thickness (mm)
Mixture Volumetric
Unit Weight (kg/m3)
Air Voids (%)1
Poissons Ratio2
Dynamic Modulus
Aggregate
Gradation
Asphalt Binder3
Thermal
Thermal Contraction
ACF-LT
SGC 10.0
2335
11.8
ACF-HT
SMA 10.0
SGC 10.0
Project specific
2357
11.2
2365
10.2
SMA 16.0
See Note 1
11.5
3.0
0.35
100 %
100 %
100 %
100.0 %
98.3 %
97.5 %
96.4 %
75.6 %
62.5 %
47.7 %
29.7 %
30.4 %
6.1%
4.8 %
11.0 %
11.8%
21.1 C
PG 58-28
PG 58-28
PG 58-28
PG 70-28
Calculated
1.16
963
Calculated
Note 2: For new HMA mixtures, use calculated Poissons ratio by expanding the row on Poissons ratio and set to true for the row on Is Poissons
Ratio calculated? Refer to Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide Table 11-3 for other reference temperatures and open-graded HMA Poisson
ratios.
Note 3: PGAC varies based on locations and traffic loading conditions. Individual projects will either Specify PG 70-28 or PG 76-28.
Page 36 of 52
CIR and CIREAM layers are classified as Cold Mix Asphalt, and Expanded Asphalt
Stabilization (EAS) are classified as Asphalt Stabilized Base Mixes in AASHTOWare Pavement
ME Design. They are all under the category of Asphalt Materials. See table below for the
recommended default input for these materials from different Canadian agencies.
Table 23a: Ontario Recommended Asphalt Stabilized Materials Properties
Asphalt Layers
Thickness (mm)
Mixture Volumetric
Unit Weight (kg/m3)
Air Voids (%)
Poissons Ratio
Dynamic Modulus
Aggregate % Passing the 19 mm Sieve
Gradation % Passing the 9.5 mm Sieve
Asphalt Binder
Thermal
Thermal Contraction
CIR
CIREAM
Project specific
2240
12.5
9
0.35
2110
13.5
13.5
0.35
2170
11.7
10
0.35

100 %
100 %
97 %
83 %
83 %
73 %
63 %
63 %
58 %
6%
6%
7%
Use viscosity based model (nationally calibrated)
selected
21.1 C
Note 1
PG 58-28
PG 58-28
Calculated
1.16
963
Calculated
Note 1: PGAC follows the binder grade of the original asphalt materials.
EAS
Page 37 of 52
Table 23b: Alberta Recommended Asphalt Stabilized Materials Properties
Asphalt Layers
Thickness (mm)
Mixture Volumetric
Unit Weight (kg/m3)
Air Voids (%)
Poissons Ratio Note 2
Dynamic Modulus
Aggregate % Passing the 19 mm Sieve
Gradation % Passing the 9.5 mm Sieve
Asphalt Binder
Thermal
Thermal Contraction
CIR
CIREAM
EAS
Asphalt
Treated
OGDL Note 1
2170
11.7
10
0.35
1700
3.9
50
0.4
Project specific
2240
12.5
9
0.35
2110
13.5
13.5
0.35

100 %
100 %
97 %
95 %
83 %
83 %
73 %
37.5 %
63 %
63 %
58 %
5%
6%
6%
7%
1%
Use viscosity based model (nationally
calibrated) selected
21.1 C
Note 3 PG 58-28 PG 58-28
PG 58-28
Calculated
1.16
963
Calculated
Note 1: Asphalt treated OGDL is used for both the flexible pavement and rigid pavement. As an option, enter as a
high quality granular with resilient modulus equal to 450 KPa when applied under HMA dense-graded
layeriv.
Note 2: Refer to Source ix for more precise Poissons Ratio
Note 3: PGAC follows the binder grade of the original asphalt materials.
Page 38 of 52
Table 23c: Edmonton Recommended Asphalt Stabilized Materials Properties
Asphalt Layers
Thickness (mm)
Mixture Volumetric
Unit Weight (kg/m3)
Air Voids (%)2
Poissons Ratio3
Dynamic Modulus
Aggregate
Gradation
Asphalt Binder4
Thermal
Thermal Contraction
FDR with Foamed

Asphalt
Project specific
2185
11.5
11
0.35
100 %
71 %
50 %
12%
Use viscosity based model
(nationally calibrated)
selected
21.1oC
PG 58-28
Calculated
1.16
963
Calculated
Note 1: PGAC follows the binder grade of the original asphalt
Page 39 of 52
Table 23d: Manitoba Recommended Asphalt Stabilized Mix Properties
Asphalt layers
Thickness
VOLUMETRIC PROPERTIES
Bulk Relative Density (kg/m3): Dry
Effective Binder Content -by Volume (%)
Air Voids (%)
Poisson's Ratio
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Dynamic Modulus
% Passing the 19-mm Sieve
% Passing the 9.5-mm Sieve
Aggregate Average
Gradation
% Passing the 4.75-mm Sieve
CIREAM
Project Specific
2150
12.3
11.1
0.4
Calculated
100
87
67
7.4
Viscosity-based model
G*-Predictive Model
21.1C
Asphalt Binder
150-200 (PG 58-28)1
Calculated
Indirect Tensile Strength -10C (Mpa)
Creep Compliance (1 Gpa)
Input level: 3
THERMAL PROPERTIES (MEPDG Default Values)
Default
Default
Default
Thermal Contraction
1
For design lane truck volume > 350 trucks per day, use Pen 120-150 binder
Although some Canadian agencies have terminated the use of Marshall mix type for flexible
pavements, many of the existing AC pavement layers were historically constructed using
Marshall mix design. Therefore, these material properties required to be input into the
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design. The following tables provide the layer properties for
various Marshall mix types.
Page 40 of 52

Table 24a: Ontario Typical Marshall Mix Properties
Asphalt Layers
Thickness (mm)
Mixture Volumetric
Unit Weight (kg/m3)
Air Voids (%) Note 1
Poissons Ratio
Dynamic Modulus
Aggregate
Gradation
Asphalt Binder
Thermal
Thermal Contraction
DFC
HDBC
MDBC
HL-1
HL-2
HL-3
Project specific
HL-4
HL-6
HL-8
2520
12.4
3.5
2460
10.9
4
2500
12.3
4
2520
12.4
4
2520
12.4
4
2480
12.2
4
2460
10.9
4
2460
10.9
4
100
82.5
52.5
2.5
97
63
43.5
3
97
63
40
3
100
82.5
55
2.5
100
82.5
55
2.5
100
72
53.5
3
97
72
53.5
3
97
63
42.5
3
2410
14.2
5
0.35
Calculated
100
100
92.5
5.5

21.1 C
Penetration Grade Note 2
Calculated
Input
level: 3 selected
1.16
963
Calculated
Note 2: For Southern Ontario, use pen. grade 85-100; for NE Ontario, use pen. grade 120-150; for NW Ontario, use pen. grade 200-300.
Page 41 of 52

Table 24b: Alberta Typical Marshall MixProperties
Asphalt Layers 1
Thickness (mm)
Mixture Volumetrics 2
Unit Weight (kg/m3)
Air Voids (%) 3
Poissons Ratio
Dynamic Modulus
Top Size (mm) (Class for Des. 1 Aggregate) 4
Aggregate Gradation 5
% Passing the 80m Sieve
Asphalt Binder
Thermal 7
Thermal Contraction
H1
H2
2380
9.9
M1
L1
S1
Project specific
2365
10.5
5.0 -7.0
2355
11.0
S2
2360
11.3
6.0 8.0
S3
2390
8.8
4.0 6.0
0.35
16.0
78
59
12.5
12.5
12.5
100
Calculated
10.0
88
61
10.0
100
68
7.0
7.5
21.1 C
Performance Grade 6
Calculated
25.0
89 - 93
63
48
6.5
1.16
963
Calculated
Mix type selection is from Alberta Transportation Design Bulletin #13 (June 2012)http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType233/Production/Bulletin13_ACP.pdf
From AT mix design database 2004 2009 (Unit weight and effective binder content)
Typical in-service values. Use mean value unless other pavement or construction data is available. Flushed or rutted pavements may be lower.
4
From AT Highway Construction Specification Table 3.2.3.1 Asphalt Concrete Mix Types and Characteristics (December 2010)
5
From AT mix design database 2004 2009.
6
From AT Design Bulletin #13 (June 2012)
High
Design ESAL (millions)
Temperature Zone
< 1.0
1.0 to < 3.0
3.0 to < 6.0
6.0 to <10.0
10 to < 20
> 20.0
2
3
1
2
PG 58-281
PG 52-34
PG 58-28
PG 52-34
PG 58-28
PG 58-28
PG 58-28
PG 58-28
PG 64-28
PG 58-28
PG 64-28
PG 64-28
3
PG 52-341
PG 52-34
PG 58-28
PG 58-28
PG 58-28
PG 64-28
Note 1- An adjustment in the asphalt grade selection for these projects involving new construction or overlays of pavements with a very low
incidence of existing transverse cracks is described in Section 4 of design bulletin. PG 58-34, PG 58-37 are also used in certain circumstances.
7
Default inputs from Pavement-MEsoftware.
Page 42 of 52
Table 24c. Manitoba Typical Marshall Mix Properties
ASPHALT LAYERS
Thickness
BIT B
BIT C
Project Specific
VOLUMETRIC PROPERTIES
Unit Weight (kg/m3)
2350
2360
Effective Buinder Content -by Volume (%)
9.6
8.9
Air Voids (%)1
4.7
5.9
Poisson's Ratio
0.35
0.38
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Dynamic Modulus
Level 3
% Passing the 19-mm Sieve
100
100
%
Passing
the
9.5
mm
Sieve
79
89
Aggregate Average
Gradation
62
74
4.1
5.5
Viscosity based model (nationally
G* Predictive Model
calibrated)
21.1C
Asphalt Binder
150-200 (PG 58-28)2
Calculated
Indirect Tensile Strength -10C (Mpa)
Creep Compliance (1 GPa)
Input level: 3
Default
Default
Thermal Contraction
Default
1
For existing HMA layer, use measured in-situ air voids
For design lane truck volume > 350 trucks/day, use Pen. 120-150 binder
Page 43 of 52
Table 24d: Edmonton Typical Marshall Mix Properties

Asphalt Layers
Thickness (mm)
Mixture Volumetric
Unit Weight (kg/m3)
Air Voids (%) 1
Poissons Ratio
Dynamic Modulus
Aggregate
% Passing the 19 mm
Gradation
Sieve
% Passing the 9.5 mm
Sieve
% Passing the 4.75 mm
Sieve
% Passing the 75 m
Sieve
Asphalt Binder
Thermal
Thermal Contraction
ACR
ACO
ACB
Project specific
2360
12.0
3.5
2350
11.0
4.0
0.35
2375
10.2
4.0
Calculated
100
100
92
85
87
75
57
58
55
7.0
7.0
7.0
Use viscosity based model

selected
21.1 C
PG 58-28
Calculated
Input
level: 3 selected
1.16
963
Calculated
Note 2: For Arterial overlays, use PG 64-28.
Page 44 of 52
5.2
Concrete Properties
Joint Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP) with doweled joints and widened slab is the typical
concrete pavement design in Canada. Concrete material properties and design parameters from
different Canadian agencies are given in Tables 25.
Table 25a: Ontario Typical Concrete Properties and Design Parametersvii
PCC
Layer Thickness (mm)
Unit Weight (kg/m3)
Poissons Ratio
Thermal
PCC Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (mm/mm degC x 10-6)
PCC Thermal Conductivity (watt/meter-Kelvin)
PCC Heat Capacity (joule/kg-Kelvin)
Mix
Cement Type
Cementious Material Content
Water/Cement Ratio
Aggregate Type
PCC Set Temperature
Ultimate Shrinkage (Microstrain)
Reversible Shrinkage (% of Ultimate Shrinkage)
Time to Develop 50% of Ultimate Shrinkage
Curing Method
Strength
PCC Strength and Modulus
28 Day Compressive Strength (MPa)
Elastic Modulus (MPa)
JPCP Design
PCC Surface Shortwave Absorptivity
PCC Joint Spacing (m)
Sealant Type
Doweled Joints
Widened slab
Tied Shoulders
Erodibility Index
PCC-base Contact Friction
Permanent Curl/Warp Effective Temperature Difference (deg C)
Project specific
2320
0.2
7.8
2.16
1172
GU (Type 1)
335 kg/m3
0.45
Limestone
Calculated
Calculated
50 %
35 Days
Curing Compound
Level 3 selected
38 Note 1
29,600
0.85
3.5, 4, 4.3, 4.5 (random)
Other
Spacing (300)
Diameter (32)
Widened (4.25)
Tied with long term load
transfer efficiency of 70
Very Erodible
Full friction with friction
loss at (240) months
-5.6
Note 1: Min. compressive strength according to OPSS 350 is 30 MPa. The compressive strength shown is the
median of past pavement construction projects.
Page 45 of 52

Table 25b. Manitoba Typical Concrete Mix Properties and Design Parameters
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

Project Specific
3
Unit Weight (kg/m )
2320
Poisson's Ratio
0.2
Default
PCC Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (mm/mm-C x 10-6)
PCC Thermal Conductivity (watt/meter-Kelvin)
Default
PCC Heat Capacity (joule/kg-Kelvin)
Default
MIX PROPERTIES
Cement Type
GU (Type 1)
3
Cementitious Material Content (kg/m )
355
Water/Cement Ratio
0.4
Aggregate Type
Project Specific
PCC Zero-stress temperature
Calculated
Ultimate Shrinkage (Microstrain)
Calculated
Reversible Shrinkage (% of Ultimate Shrinkage)
50%
Time to Develop 50% of Ultimate Shrinkage
Default
Curing Method
Curing Compound
STRENGTH PROPERTIES
PCC Strength and Modulus
Level 3
28-day Compressive Strength (MPa)
32
Elastic Modulus (Gpa)
Calculated
JPCP DESIGN
PCC Surface Shortwave Absorptivity
Default
PCC Joint Spacing (m)
4.6
Sealant Type
Other
Spacing (300)
Dowelled Joints
Diameter (34.3)
Widened Slab
4.3 m
Tied Shoulders
No
Erodibility Index
Very Erodible
PCC-base Contact Friction
Full Friction
Default
Pavement Curl/Warp Effective Temperature Difference, C
Page 46 of 52
5.3
Granular Properties
Tables 26 show the typical properties for granular material in Canada from different agencies.
Table 26a: Ontario Typical Granular Material Propertiesvii
Unbound
Poissons Ratio
Coefficient of Lateral
Pressure (ko)
Modulus
Resilient Modulus Note 1
(MPa)
Sieve
Gradation and other
engineering properties
Aggregate
75 m
Gradation
300 mm
(percent
1.18 mm
passing)
4.75 mm
9.5 mm
13.2 mm
19.0 mm
25 mm
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Index
Is layer compacted
Maximum dry unit
weight (kg/m3)
Saturated hydraulic
conductivity (m/hr)
Specific gravity of
solids
Optimum gravimetric
water content (T)
Granular Granular
A
B-I
Granular Granular
B-II
B-III
Project specific
0.35
0.5
Granular
O
250
150
200
150
200
5
13.5
27.5
45
61.5
77.5
92.5
100
6
4
33.5
55
60
75
11
5
13.5
25
37.5
75
11
0
Yes
Calculated
4
18.5
35
55
66
75
11
2.5
7.5
32.5
60
70
87.5
97.5
100
6
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Note 1: The resilient moduli shown are based on new materials. Reduction in resilient modulus for existing granular
can be up to 40% depending on the condition of materials.
Page 47 of 52
Table 26b. Manitoba Unbound Granular Material Properties
Layer Thickness
Poisson's Ratio
Coefficient of
Lateral Pressure
Limestone
A-Base
Granite
A-Base
0.45
0.45
Gravel
Granite
A-Base
C-Base
Project Specific
0.45
0.45
0.5
0.5
0.5
RESILIENT MODULUS
Gravel
C-Base
0.45
0.5
0.5
Aggregate Gradation
(% Passing)
Resilient Modulus
(MPa)
140
140
120
120
AVERAGE GRADATION AND OTHER PROPERTIES
75 m
13.6
12.6
12.4
8.9
0.180 mm
15
17
16
15
0.425 mm
18
24
23
30
0.850 mm
22
29
32
40
2.0 mm
32
36
46
49
4.75 mm
49
50
61
60
9.5 mm
72
70
77
69
12.5 mm
85
83
87
74
19.0 mm
100
100
100
81
25.0 mm
100
100
100
91
Liquid Limit
NP
19
17
NP
Plasticity Index
NP
3
1
NP
Is layer compacted?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Maximum dry
density (kg/m3)
2170
2310
2240
2200
Saturated hydraulic
Conductivity (m/hr)
Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated
Specific gravity of
Solids
Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated
Optimum
Gravimetric Water
Content (%)
10.8
7.5
8.5
6.4
110
13.7
17
22
25
31
41
55
65
85
97
NP
NP
Yes
2220
Calculated
Calculated
8.0
If FWD testing is employed, the backcalculated granular base or subbase modulus should be
multiplied by a factor as per Table 27.
Page 48 of 52

Table 27: Convert the Calculated Base/Subbase Layer Modulus Values to an Equivalent Resilient
Modulus Measured in the Laboratoryiv
Layer Type
Aggregate
Base/Subbase
Location
Between a Stabilized and HMA Layer
Below a PCC Layer
Below an HMA Layer
Mr / EFWD Ratio
1.43
1.32
0.62
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design categorizes open grade drainage layer (OGDL) and
cement treated based (CTB) as chemically stabilized layer. The required inputs for a chemically
stabilized layer can be broadly classified as general, strength, and thermal properties. Following
table shows the recommended Ontarios default input.
Table 28: Ontario Typical Chemically Stabilized Base Material Properties
General
Unit Weight (kg/m3)
Poissons Ratio
Strength
Backcalculated Resilient Modulus (MPa) Note 1
Minimum Resilient Modulus (MPa)
Modulus of Rupture (MPa)iv
(Laboratory) Resilient Modulus (MPa) iv
Thermal
Cement
CTB
Treated OGDL
Project specific
1800
2400
0.2
0.2
See Note 2
690
5.2 when placed as base
1.7 when placed as subbase or
subgrade
5170
6900
2.16
1172
Note 1: This parameter is for rehabilitation design type only.

Note 2: Enter backcalculated modulus from FWD testing if available; otherwise, enter the laboratory
resilient modulus (multiplied with an appropriate conversion factor).
For other chemically stabilized granular bases that are less common in Ontario, please refer to
Table 11-7 of Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guideiv.
Page 49 of 52
5.4
Subgrade Properties
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design default values for subgrade properties are based on
AASHTO soil classification system. The default values in the program may not be the same that
are used by the local agencies. Table 29 provides subgrade modulus values based on MTO soils
classification. The use of these values may result in a conservative design. It is recommended
backcalculated modulus based on FWD testing be used for more precise values.
Table 29: Ontario Subgrade moduli for various classifications of soilsvi
Brief Description
Rock, rock fill,

shattered rock,
boulders/cobbles
Well graded
gravels and sands
suitable as
granular borrow
Poorly graded
gravels and sands
Silty gravels and
sands
Clayey gravels
and sands
Silts and sandy
silts
Low plasticity
clays and
compressible silts
Medium to high
plasticity clays
Category
No.
MTO
Classification
(MTO, 1980)
Drainage
Characteristics
Susceptibility
at Frost
Action
MR
(MPa)
Good
MR
(MPa)
Fair
MR
(MPa)
Poor
Boulders/
cobbles
Excellent
None
90
80
70
GW, SW
Excellent
Negligible
80
70
50
GP, SP
Excellent to fair
70
50
35
GM, SM
50
35
30
GC, SC
40
30
25
Fair to semiimpervious
Practically
impervious
Negligible to
slight
Slight to
moderate
Negligible to
slight
ML, MI
Typically poor
Severe
30
25
18
CL, MH
Practically
impervious
Slight to
severe
35
20
15
CI; CH
Semi-impervious
to impervious
Negligible to
severe
30
20
15
If FWD testing is employed, the backcalculated subgrade and embankment modulus should be
multiplied by a factor as per Table 30.
Table 30: Convert the Calculated Subgrade Embankment Layer Modulus Values to an Equivalent
Resilient Modulus Measured in the Laboratoryiv
Layer Type
SubgradeEmbankment
Location
Below a Stabilized Subgrade/Embankment
Below HMA or PCC Layer
Below an Unbound Aggregate Base
Mr / EFWD Ratio
0.75
0.52
0.35
Page 50 of 52
Table 31 provides a list of typical subgrade materials found in Ontario and their associated properties based on historical soils data.
Table 31: Ontario Typical Subgrade Properties
CL
Unbound
Poissons Ratioix
Coefficient of Lateral Pressure (k0)ix
CH
MI
MH
SM
SC
Semi-infinite
0.45 (saturated)
0.2 (unsaturated)
0.65 (very stiff and hard residual)
0.72 (medium stiff )
Modulus
Resilient Modulus (MPa)
Gradation and other engineering properties
Aggregate
0.002 mm
30
Gradation (percent
0.075 mm
80
passing)
0.180 mm
84
0.425 mm
91
2.00 mm
95
4.75 mm
97
9.5 mm
99
12.5 mm
100
19.0 mm
100
25.0 mm
100
Liquid Limit
26
Plasticity Index
12
Is layer compacted
Maximum dry unit weight (kg/m3)
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (m/hr)
Specific gravity of solids
Optimum gravimetric water content (T)
CI
Subgrade Type
CL-ML
ML
0.325
0.3 (dense)
0.15 (coarse-grained)
0.25 (fine-grained)
0.73
0.68
Refer to Table 29
37
88
92
95
98
99
100
100
100
100
41
21
60
92
94
96
98
99
100
100
100
100
67
43
16
84
89
92
96
98
99
100
100
100
22
6
11
74
86
91
95
96
100
100
100
100
26
3
Yes
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Page 51 of 52
25
82
91
95
98
100
100
100
100
100
42
15
40
84
91
96
99
100
100
100
100
100
53
21
8
29
58
72
84
90
94
97
98
100
18
4
13
32
48
56
86
93
100
100
100
100
22
10
Source: MTOs Pavement Management System (PMS-2) data

Source: Diamond Grinding for Pavement Preservation dated February 2010 prepared by International Grinding
and Grooving Association
iii
Based on Table 1 from Ride Improvements for Various Rehabilitation Treatments by Mesher et al, CTAA 2013
(to be published)
iv
Source: Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide A Manual of Practice July 2008 Interim Edition
published by AASHTO.
v
From AT Pavement Design Guide (except >20.0 Million)
vi
Source: MI-183 Adaptation and Verification of AASHTO Pavement Design Guide for Ontario conditions, Final
Report on March 19, 2008.
vii
Source: Life Cycle Cost 2006 Update Final Report dated August 23, 2007, prepared by ARA Inc.
viii
Source: Evaluation of Pre-overlay Rut Depth for Local Calibration of the MEPDG Rutting Model TRB 2013,
by Ryerson University.
ix
Source: NCHRP final report 1-37A Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated
Pavement Structure, Part 2 Design Inputs, Chapter 2 Material Characterization
ii
Page 52 of 52

Canadian Guide: Default Parameters For AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canadian Guide: Default Parameters For AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canadian Guide:

Default Parameters for AASHTOWare

Pavement ME User Group