Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 11
Assessment of the 1993 AASHTO Structural Number as a Tool for Performance

Evaluation of Asphalt Pavements Using Falling Weight Deflectometer Data from LTPP
M. Elshaer1; M. Oshone2; E. Dave3; J. E. Sias4 ; Y. Mehta5; and A. Ali6
1
Center for Research and Education in Advanced Transportation Engineering Systems
(CREATEs), Rowan Univ., Mullica Hill, NJ 08062. E-mails: elshaer@rowan.edu
2
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824.
E-mails: mto1@wildcats.unh.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Mohamed Elshaer on 08/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
3
E-mails: eshan.dave@unh.edu
4
E-mails: jo.sias@unh.edu
5
(CREATEs), Rowan Univ., Mullica Hill, NJ 08062. E-mails: Mehta@rowan.edu
6
(CREATEs), Rowan Univ., Mullica Hill, NJ 08062. E-mails: alia@rowan.edu
ABSTRACT
Since its first development in 1960, the AASHTO design guide for flexible pavements design
has been widely used by many agencies for the design of a pavement structure. The guide was
substantially modified in 1986 to incorporate nationwide requirements and climatic conditions.
However, with significant changes in asphalt technology such as the addition of recycled asphalt,
modifiers, and change in traffic and climatic condition, the reliability of the empirical equation to
predict the performance of flexible pavements has been put into question. However, even with
such concerns, it still remains the most prevalent design method used for the design of a
pavement structure by many agencies. One of the most significant breakthroughs of the 1993
design guide was the introduction of the concept of structural number (SN). This study
investigates the capability of 1993 AASHTO SN to monitor the changes in pavement
performance as it relates to roughness (IRI), rutting, and fatigue cracking using measured field
data of four sections from the long-term pavement performance (LTPP) database. The
backcalculated moduli values from FWD tests corrected at mid-depth reference temperature are
used to determine the layer coefficients. Then, the structural strength of the overall pavement
(i.e. SN) for the course of a pavement life is compared to the change in pavement performance
(i.e. IRI, rutting, and fatigue cracking). The results showed a significant relationship between the
change in SN and a change in pavement performance as it relates to rutting and roughness index
where with a decrease in SN, the IRI and rut depth increases. The SN assessment also showed
that the LTPP database can be used as a valuable source to calibrate the 1993 AASHTO SN
equation based on measured field data from LTPP.
Keywords: 1993 AASHTO Design, Structural Number (SN), LTPP, FWD, IRI, Rut depth
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The AASHO road test in the late 1950s and early 1960s near Ottawa, Illinois resulted in the
development of a guide for flexible pavement design. The guide was first introduced in 1961 as
the “AASHO Interim Guide for the design of Rigid and Flexible Pavements”. Since its first
introduction, the guide has been significantly modified in 1986 to incorporate nationwide
© ASCE
Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

requirements and climatic conditions. The road test was performed on pavements that have a
wide range of variation in surface mixture type, axle configuration, and layer thickness. Based on
a two-year performance data from AASHTO road test in 1958-1960, an empirical equation that
relates pavement layer thickness to total traffic load projected for the pavement life in terms of
Equivalent Axle Load (ESAL) is developed (HRB, 1962). Currently, due to a significant change
in asphalt technology such as the addition of RAP, modifiers, and increase in traffic loading and
change in climate, there is an ongoing regional effort by agencies to calibrate the Mechanistic-
Empirical Pavement Design Guide (Pavement ME) and subsequently transition to a mechanistic
pavement design. However, regardless of such effort, the AASHTO 1993 guide still remains the
most common method that is employed by agencies for the design of a pavement structure due to
its simplicity and agencies confidence in the method.
One of the most significant advances of the 1986 design guide was the introduction of the
concept of structural number (SN). The SN considers material property, thickness, and drainage
capability of each layer in a pavement structure as indicated in Equation 1 (AASHTO, 1993;
Pologruto, 2001). The layer coefficients (a1, a2, a3) are indicative of the relative strength of
different layers whereas the drainage coefficients (m2 and m3) account for moisture condition in
the unbound layers. The SN determines the design thickness of the pavement layers.
Consequently, the layer thickness determines the total number of designs ESAL the pavement
can carry without causing damage to the subgrade which is the primary goal of pavement design.
The SN concept follows the notion that the condition of the subgrade is protected by providing
sufficient structural strength and good drainage capacity for all pavement layers. Meaning, for a
stronger subgrade condition a lower SN is required as compared to a weaker subgrade condition
assuming the pavements are exposed to the same climatic and loading conditions.
SN  a1D1  a2 D2 m2  a3 D3m3 anth Dnth mnth (1)
where
SN = Structural Number; a1, a2, a3 = layer coefficients of the surface, base, and subbase
layers, respectively; D1, D2 and D3 = layer thicknesses in inches of the surface, base, and subbase
layers, respectively; m2 and m3 = layer drainage coefficients of the base, and subbase layers,
respectively;
The AASHTO design guide suggests the use of backcalulated moduli from Falling weight
deflectometer (FWD) to determine the layer coefficients. This method was found to be more
accurate because it accounts for actual field conditions by measuring the deflection of
constructed pavement. On the other hand, the use of lab measured stiffness values might cause
bias in the estimated layer coefficient values due to deviations of material properties of lab-
produced samples from mixtures placed in the field. Moreover, the FWD test provides a closer
representation of the wide range of loading condition as well as the dynamic nature of the
moving vehicle load. The Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program launched the
Seasonal Monitoring Program (SMP) to monitor the pavement response at 64 sites by measuring
the FWD deflection, pavement profiles, daily and annual temperature, moisture content, and
frost/thaw on pavement structure (Elkins et al. 2003). The backcalculated moduli of pavement
layers available in LTPP are calculated from the FWD deflection measurements using three
programs: EVERCALC, MODTAG, and Modulus (Von Quintus et al. 2015).
Pavement smoothness (i.e. roughness) is one of the most important indicators of pavement
performance associated with pavement serviceability. It affects ride quality and accelerates the
occurrence of other pavement distresses (i.e. fatigue cracking and rutting) (Mubaraki, 2016). In
turn, any pavement distresses will also accelerate the deterioration of the pavement roughness
© ASCE

value (i.e. International Roughness Index (IRI)). As a result, there is a relationship between
pavement distresses and pavement roughness showing dependence of one on the other. Hence,
pavement performance should be assessed based on both IRI and pavement distress types to
make a better decision for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation.
A large amount of roughness, fatigue cracking, and rutting data has been collected as part of
the LTPP studies. However, the analysis of these extensive data to determine the relationship
between the change in the SN of overall pavement structure and the corresponding changes in
pavement roughness and distress are not well documented. In addition, limited studies have
evaluated the use of the 1993 AASHTO SN equation (Equation 1) to determine the SN of overall
pavement structure based on FWD test (Abd El-Raof et al. 2018). Therefore, there is a need to
investigate the ability of Equation 1 to track the changes in pavement cracking, rutting, and
roughness to accurately design a pavement structure. This can be achieved using historical
backcalculated modulus from FWD measurements, temperature profile, fatigue cracking, rutting,
and IRI measurements from the LTPP database to better understand the effect of change in
pavement strength on pavement performance.
GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to investigate the relationship between structural number and
pavement performance. The specific objectives of this paper to achieve the above goal include:
(a) assessment of the 1993 AASHTO SN equation to track the change in pavement strength as it
relates to pavement distresses and roughness; and (b) evaluation of the impact of pavement
maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) on pavement strength and performance. The proposed
study is based on historical LTPP field data measurements in one climatic zone; wet-freeze (i.e.,
FWD backcalculated moduli, temperature profile, rutting, fatigue cracking, and IRI).
COLLECTED LTPP DATA DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS APPROACH

This section provides a discussion of the collected LTPP sections to investigate the capability
of 1993 AASHTO SN equation to track the changes in pavement performance over the course of
pavement service life. This section also provides the details of SN analysis using the collected
field data.
LTPP Data Collection

The data used in this study was obtained from the LTPP from Standard Data Release (SDR
32- July 2018) made available by the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA). The selected
data was collected from four LTPP-SMP sections located in the New England region
(Connecticut (CT), Massachusetts (MA), Maine (ME), and Vermont (VT)). The selected sections
covered the wet-freeze climatic zone. Table 1 shows the information of the selected LTPP test
sections. The criteria for selecting the sections considered in this study was based on the
availability of a significant number of backcalculated modulus from FWD measurements,
temperature profile, fatigue cracking, rutting, and IRI measurements. This selection process was
important to ensure correlating realistic field-determined moduli values to the actual strength of
overall pavement section and therefore capturing the impact on their field distress and roughness.
Temperature profiles for each section were utilized to ensure the bound and unbound material
layers are not frozen during the time of FWD testing. This was done to exclude the
unrealistically high backcalculated modulus data of pavement layers from the analysis during
© ASCE

winter time which is due to frozen pavement layers (i.e., pavement structure temperatures < 0oC).
Consequently, field measurements of IRI, fatigue cracking, rutting and FWD collected for three
seasons (summer, fall, and spring seasons where the pavement structure temperatures > 0oC)
were considered in this study.
The average backcalculated moduli values obtained from FWD measurements when the test
was conducted in the outer wheel path at a load of 40 kN were used for SN analysis. These
backcalculated moduli values in the outer wheel path were selected because the pavement
distress usually occurs in the wheel path. In addition, the IRI profile data at LTPP test sections
were collected along the wheel path thus, capturing a realistic behavior of pavements. It is also
noted that the profile testing, fatigue cracking and rutting measurements and FWD testing were
not performed on the same day at LTPP test sections. Therefore, IRI, fatigue cracking, rutting
and FWD data collected on dates close to each other were selected from the LTPP database for
SN analysis.
Table 1. Selected LTPP Sites

1 2 3 4
LTPP Sites
09-1803 25-1002 23-1026 50-1002
Connecticut Massachusetts Maine
Location Vermont (VT)
(CT) (MA) (ME)
AC (183
Surface type AC (180 mm) AC (198 mm) AC (216 mm)
mm)
Uncrushed Uncrushed
Crushed gravel Crushed gravel
Base type gravel (300 gravel
(102 mm) (655 mm)
mm) (447 mm)
Coarse- Coarse-
Coarse-Grained Coarse-Grained
Grained Soils: Grained
Soils: Poorly Soil: Poorly
Subgrade type Well-graded Soils: silty
graded sand with graded gravel
sand with silt sand with
silt with silt and sand
and gravel gravel
FWD deflection,
IRI, rutting and
fatigue cracking 1989-2010 1989-2004 1989-2001 1989-2003
data measurements
(year)
Crack sealing
Crack sealing
(Jan1995 & Asphalt
(Oct 1992 & Nov
Maintenance and Jul 1996) Overlay –
1994) Patch Pot
Rehabilitation Asphalt 67 mm _________
Holes (Sep 199,
(M&R) Overlay- 70 (Sep
May 1997 May
mm (Jun 1996)
2000, Apr 2003)
2000)
ANALYSIS APPROACH
Temperature is the most critical factor affecting surface deflection and AC modulus.
Therefore, the backcalculated AC modulus from FWD test should be adjusted to a reference
temperature. The measured mid-depth temperature of the AC layer was considered as the
© ASCE

effective temperature to represent the AC layer temperature at the time of FWD measurement
(Chen et al. 2000). The backcalculated AC moduli were corrected to the standard temperature of
68 F (20°C) using the Asphalt Temperature Adjustment Factor (ATAF) presented in Equation
(2) and Equation (3) was used to adjust the backcalculated moduli (Lukanen et al. 2000). Then,
the layer coefficient values for AC layer (a1) were determined using the corrected backcalculated
asphalt moduli at 20oC using the Equation in the AASHTO 1993. In addition, the impact of
environmental conditions such as moisture content on the stiffness of unbound material is
essential for determining the SN values where the stiffness increases as the moisture content
decrease and vice versa. Therefore, the backcalculated base moduli from FWD test was used as a
good indicator of the influence of environmental factors on unbound material. Consequently, the
structural layer coefficients of the unbound granular base (a 2) were calculated as a function of the
backcalculated moduli of base layer every time of measurements using the Equation in the
AASHTO 1993.
ATAF  10slope(Tr Tm ) (2)
ECorrected at reference temp  ATAF  Ebackcalculated at measured temp (3)
where,
ATAF=Asphalt Temperature Adjustment Factir; Slope = Log (Mr)=intercept+slope T=-
0.021 for mid-lane and −0.0195 for wheel-path; Tr = reference mid-depth AC layer temperature
o
𝐶; 𝑇𝑚 = mid-depth AC layer temperature at the time of FWD testing, o𝐶; E corrected at
reference temp = corrected AC layer modulus to a reference temperature; Ebackcalculated =
backcalculated AC modulus at temperature of FWD testing;
A drainage coefficient value of 0.4 was extracted from the LTPP database based upon the
climate zone of four LTPP sections and used in this analysis for all the unbound materials. Then,
the SN for each of the four LTPP pavement sections was calculated using Equation 1 with layer
and drainage coefficient values for the AC and base layers. Finally, the SN values computed
from FWD data were compared to average IRI, rutting, and fatigue cracking to examine the
relationship between change in IRI, rutting, and fatigue cracking to change in SN.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figures 1-4 show the change in IRI, fatigue cracking, and rutting with the change in SN for
the course of pavement life for each of the four LTPP sections. Figure 1 is for CT section, Figure
2 is for ME section, Figure 3 is for VT section, and Figure 4 is for MA section. As shown in
Figures 1a and 1b, when the SN decreases the rut depth, fatigue cracking and IRI increase.
Generally, the peak in SN occurred in the summer time due to the higher stiffness of base and
subgrade layers. The increase in stiffness is anticipated in the unbound layers during the summer
season due to the lower moisture content as compared to the spring season. In other words, the
measured moisture content of the unbound layers is expected to be at the optimum moisture
content or below the optimum value. To validate this assumption, the soil moisture profile was
extracted from the LTPP database and is used to evaluate if the moisture content of the unbound
materials is the reason for the observed high moduli value during summer seasons. The result
depicts that the SN increases by 17% in the summer season (e.g. August 1994) due to stiffer
unbound materials. There is a slight decrease in the rut depth (i.e. decrease of 1-2 mm) in some
years regardless of the maintenance and rehabilitation done. This decrease in rut depth could be
because of the volume change in the unbound materials during freeze-thaw cycles and/or the
variability in the rut depth measurements. The results also show that the crack sealing
© ASCE

maintenance improved the fatigue cracking while the AC overlay increased the structural
strength of the overall pavement (i.e. SN) and decreased IRI, rutting, and fatigue cracking.
Figure 1. Change in (a) SN vs fatigue cracking and rutting data (b) SN vs IRI data for CT
section
Figure 2. Change in SN vs rutting and IRI data for ME section
© ASCE

Figure 3. Change in (a) SN vs fatigue cracking and rutting data (b) SN vs IRI data for VT
section
In the case of ME section (Figure 2), the SN and rutting depth follow the same pattern as CT
section, where SN decreases, rut depth and IRI increase. However, the IRI profile showed some
mixed results where the trend between SN and IRI fluctuates. These mixed results could be the
impact of inherent error in backcalculation process. The fatigue cracking data was not plotted
because the measurements were zero for all investigated years. It is also noted that thin overlays
have resulted in large reductions in IRI and rut depth. For example, the IRI value was reduced
from 1.4 m/km to 0.9 m/km after resurfacing with a 67-mm thick AC overlay. In addition, the rut
depth values after the resurfaced section decreased from 16 mm to 5 mm in a 5-year period.
However, in the last five years, the rut depth shows some mixed results where SN increase rut
depth increase as well. One potential reason explaining these mixed rut depth results is the
domination of base layer modulus (i.e. higher stiffness) due to lower moisture content).
Similar to CT and ME sections, when the SN decreases IRI, rut depth and fatigue cracking
increase as shown in Figure 3a and 3b. However, there are few mixed results where SN
increased, the rut depth, fatigue cracking, and IRI increased as well. These mixed results could
© ASCE

be a result of 1) inconsistency in field measurements, 2) volume change in unbound materials

due to freeze-thaw cycles, 3) variability in the backcalculation analysis 4) lower subgrade
modulus due to high moisture content. As shown in Figures 4a and 4b, when the SN decreases,
IRI and rut depth increased. On the other hand, fatigue cracking does not follow similar trend to
SN. The plots show that the M&R (potholes) improved the strength of overall pavement, IRI,
fatigue cracking, and rutting potential (i.e. fatigue cracking, IRI and rut depth decreased).
Figure 4. Change in (a) SN vs fatigue cracking and rutting data (b) SN vs IRI data for MA
section
Table 2. Significance and Correlation of SN to Different Performance Measurements
Performance R2 p-values
Measurements CT ME VT MA CT ME VT MA
IRI 0.59 0.83 0.59 0.02 0.0002 0.0001 0.0057 0.7224
Rutting 0.51 0.79 0.51 0.16 0.0043 0.0001 0.0231 0.1701
Fatigue Cracking 0.01 0.14 0.07 0.004 0.8534 0.0381 0.2214 0.9146
A statistical analysis was performed to determine the significance and correlation of SN to

different pavement performance measurements. The p-values between SN and IRI, rut depth, and
© ASCE

fatigue cracking were determined from a stepwise regression analysis are shown in Table 2. The
common practice of using p-value of 0.05 as a threshold is adopted. The pavement performance
measurements where SN is found significant are shown in Bold. The results indicated that SN
has a significant effect on the IRI and rutting performance of pavements with the exception of
MA section. The coefficient of determination (R2) values between SN and the different
performance measurements are also shown in Table 2. In general, the results from CT, ME and
VT show that more than 50% of the variation in SN is explained by change in IRI and rutting
whereas the contribution of fatigue cracking to the observed change in SN was found minimal.
Overall, the analysis presented in this study showed the existence of a statistically significant
relationship (at 95% confidence interval) between SN and roughness (IRI) and rutting over the
pavement service life for three of the four LTPP sections.
CONCLUSIONS
The study presented in this paper investigated the capability of the 1993 AASHTO SN model
(Equation 1) to monitor the changes in pavement performance as it relates to fatigue cracking,
rutting, and roughness of a pavement. Four LTPP pavement sections located in Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont were used to assess the SN equation using FWD test data.
The backcalculated moduli of AC layer were adjusted to a reference mid-depth temperature of
20C to predict the layer coefficient of AC layer. A comparison between the change in SN
predicted from the 1993 AASHTO SN equation after temperature correction and change in
pavement roughness (i.e. IRI) and pavement distress (i.e. fatigue cracking and rutting) was
conducted. The following conclusions can be drawn based on the observation:
 There is a statistically significant relationship between SN calculated from 1993
AASHTO equation and pavement performance (i.e. Rutting and IRI) for the majority of
the selected LTPP sections.
 LTPP database can be used to calibrate 1993 AASHTO SN equation based on FWD
testing and pavement performance measurements.
This study was limited to assessing the 1993 AASHTO SN equation to monitor the changes
in pavement performance based on FWD testing for four sections in the wet-freeze climatic
zone. Further studies are needed to investigate other pavement structures from different locations
in the four climatic zones to accurately calibrate the SN equation. Despite this limitation, this
study has preliminary showed that the use of this information can be adapted to calibrate the SN
equation regionally based on measured field data from LTPP. This will lead to increase in
pavement service life, and decrease the interventions (preservation, rehabilitation, and
maintenance).
REFERENCES
Abd El-Raof, H. S., Abd El-Hakim, R. T., El-Badawy, S. M., & Afify, H. A. (2018). Structural
number prediction for flexible pavements using the long-term pavement performance data.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 1-15.
Chen, D. H., Bilyeu, J., Lin, H. H., & Murphy, M. (2000). Temperature correction on falling
weight deflectometer measurements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, (1716), 30-39.
Elkins, G. E., Schmalzer, P., Thompson, T., & Simpson, A. (2003). Introduction to the LTPP
information management system (IMS) (Rep. No. FHWA-RD-03-088). Washington, DC:
© ASCE

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Highway Research Board (1962), The AASHO Road Test, Special Reports Nos. 61A-61G and
73, Washington, D. C.
Lukanen, E. O., Stubstad, R., & Briggs, R. 2000. Temperature Predictions and Adjustment
Factors for Asphalt Pavement.
Mubaraki, M. (2016). Highway subsurface assessment using pavement surface distress and
roughness data. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 9(5), 393-402.
Pologruto, M. (2001). Procedure for use of falling weight deflectometer to determine AASHTO
layer coefficients. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, (1764), 11-19.

Transportation Officials. (1993). AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures, 1993 (Vol.
1). AASHTO.
Von Quintus, H. L., Rao, C., & Irwin, L. (2015). Long-Term Pavement Performance Program
Determination of In-Place Elastic Layer Modulus: Backcalculation Methodology and
Procedures (No. FHWA-HRT-15-036).
© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

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

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 11

Assessment of the 1993 AASHTO Structural Number as a Tool for Performance

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND