PART IV

MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL
DESIGN PROCEDURES
 PART IV
MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL DESIGN
PROCEDURES
1.1 INTRODUCTION
part IV of the Guide is a brief overview of the use
of analytical and mechanistic procedures for the de-
sign and evaluation of pavement structures.
The use of analytical methods to estimate the
stress, strain, or deflection state of pavements is not
new. For portland cement concrete pavements?the use
of such methods for design dates back to at least 1938
when Bradbury (I) published his paper on design of
reinforced concrete pavements. Friberg (2), New-
mark (3), Pickett ( 4 ) , and Ray ( 5 ) were among the
early contributors in this field through the 1940’s and
1950’s. Since that time there have been extensive con-
tributions by many investigators from government,
industry, and academia. For asphalt concrete pave-
ments, the publications of Burmister (@, McLeod
(7),Acum and Fox ( 8 ) ,and Palmer (9),beginning in
1940, have provided some of the basic theories appli-
cable to this type of pavement.
For purposes of this Guide, the use of analytical
methods refers to the numerical capability to calculate
the stress, strain, or deflection in a multi-layered sys-
tem, such as a pavement, when subjected to external
loads, or the effects of temperature or moisture.
Mechanistic methods or procedures will refer to the
ability to translate the analytical calculations of pave-
ment response to performance. Performance, for the
majority of procedures used, refers to physical dis-
tress such as cracking or rutting. For rigid pavements,
the procedures have been applied to determination of
dowel sizes, reinforcement requirements, and joint
spacing. For flexible pavements, the mechanistic
procedures have also been applied to roughness
predictions.
Mechanistic design procedures are based on the
assumption that a pavement can be modeled as a
multi-layered elastic or visco-elastic structure on an
elastic or visco-elastic foundation. Assuming that
pavements can be modeled in this manner, it is possi-
ble to calculate the stress, strain, or deflection (due to
traffic loadings and/or environments) at any point
within or below the pavement structure. However, re-
searchers recognize that pavement performance will
likely be influenced by a number of factors which will
not be precisely modeled by mechanistic methods. It
is, therefore, necessary to calibrate the models with
observations of performance? i.e., empirical correla-
tions. Thus, the procedure is referred to in the Guide
as a mechanistic-empirical design procedure.
Researchers in this field have hypothesized that
modeling the pavement, as described above, should
improve the reliability of the design equations which
are, in effect, prediction models. For example, in Part
I1 of the Guide, the design nomographs estimate the
thickness of the pavement structure required to main-
tain an acceptable level of service for a specific num-
ber of traffic loadings. In a similar way, mechanistic
procedures would predict the occurrence of distress or
pavement deterioration as a function of traffic and
environment or environment alone.
A state of the knowledge summary of mechanistic
design procedures has been prepared as a working
document and can be found in Volume 3 of the Guide.
Volume 3 contains nine chapters and an appendix
which describe in detail the current status of the devel-
opment and use of these procedures for design of new
and rehabilitated pavements.
Most current methods of design for flexible pave-
ments make no direct use of mechanistic-design
procedures. There are a few exceptions; for example,
The Kentucky Department of Transportation (ZO),
The Asphalt Institute (II), and Shell International
( 1 2 ) all have developed such procedures for general
application to a variety of design considerations.
Most methods for structural design of rigid pave-
ments do not include mechanistic design concepts.
The method of the Portland Cement Association for
fatigue cracking of PCCP is a representative example
(13).
The design methodology incorporated in the 1972
issue of the AASHTO Design Guide for flexible pave-
ments did not incorporate mechanistic procedures,
although the supporting work, included in NCHRP
Report 128 ( I d ) , did introduce such concepts for pos-
sible future use in the Guide. This issue (1986) of the

Guide has indirectly used mechanistic procedures for
evaluating seasonal damage and to establish coeffi-
cients for drainage and load transfer. Also, the use of
the resilient modulus to represent material properties
introduces the concept that paving materials can be
represented by a quasi-elastic modulus.
In summary, while mechanistic-empirical design
procedures are still somewhat limited for use with
flexible pavements, there is a significant body of re-
search to draw from if an agency is interested in devel-
oping such design procedures. For rigid pavements
the use of analytical methods and mechanistic proce-
dures has been the standard of the industry for over
40 years.
1.2 BENEFITS
Researchers in working to develop mechanistic-
empirical design procedures hypothesize that these
methods, which are based on long-established theory,
will model a pavement more correctly than the empiri-
cal equations which have been traditionally used for
flexible pavements and for some aspects of rigid pave-
ments. The primary benefits which could accrue from
the successful application of mechanistic procedures
will be: (1) improved reliability for design, (2) ability
to predict specific types of distress, and (3) the ability
to extrapolate from limited field and laboratory
results.
The ability or lack of ability to design a pavement
for site-specific conditions influences the amount of
conservatism to be included in design. The conse-
quences of increased conservatism will result in less
than optimum use of funds. For example, the more
conservatism built into each project limits the number
of projects that can be constructed in any given time
period. Thus, more reliable design methods would
result in optimum use of available funds.
A second major benefit of mechanistic procedures
is the ability to predict specific types of distress; e.g.,
cracking, faulting, rutting, etc. Pavement management
systems require the ability to predict the occurrence of
distress in order to minimize the costs of maintenance
and rehabilitation. Mechanistic procedures offer the
best opportunity to meet this requirement for PMS.
The third major benefit would be the ability to ex-
trapolate from limited amounts of field or laboratory
data before attempting full-scale, long-term demon-
stration projects. This screening process could save
money and time by eliminating those concepts which
are judged to have very little merit.
Design of Pavement Structures
A subset of benefits which could result from the
development of mechanistic procedures are summa-
rized as follows:
Estimates of the consequences of new loading
conditions can be evaluated. For example, the
damaging effects of increased loads, high tire
pressures, multiple axles, etc., can be modeled
using mechanistic procedures.
Better utilization of available materials can be
estimated. For example, the use of stabilized
materials in both rigid and flexible pavements
can be simulated to predict future perform-
ance.
Improved procedures to evaluate premature
distress can be developed or conversely to ana-
lyze why some pavements exceed their design
expectations. In effect, better diagnostic tech-
niques can be developed.
Aging can be included in estimates of perform-
ance, e.g., asphalts harden with time which, in
turn, affects both fatigue cracking and rutting.
Seasonal effects such as thaw-weakening can
be included in estimates of performance.
Consequences of subbase erosion under rigid
pavements can be evaluated.
Methods can be developed to better evaluate
the long-term benefits of providing improved
drainage in the roadway section.
In summary, while the application of mechanistic-
empirical design procedures have had only limited
application for flexible pavements, there is a consen-
sus among most researchers that such methods offer
the best opportunity to improve pavement technology
for this type of construction for the next several dec-
ades. The application of analytical and mechanistic
procedures are now used for the design of rigid pave-
ments and have proven to be effective. The extension
of these techniques to new designs and different appli-
cations is considered to be a viable objective in the
years to come.
1.3 FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT
AND APPLICATION
Figure 1.1 illustrates the framework for the devel-
opment of mechanistic-empirical design procedures
for new designs and for rehabilitation. Figure 1.2 il-
lustrates the application to an overlay for flexible
pavements.
The inputs required for the system include traffic,
roadbed soil properties , environment, material char-
Mechanistic-Empirical Design Procedures
lnmal Design
Development Methodology
I
clncerrainly

Environment

Construciion

Analysis
Strain or Oetormation Analysisl

4nalyss
I
I
I I I I I I I I I 1
Fatigue
Crackmg 1 F~iltiriq Punchout Rouqhnuss

I
Volume
Change
Elfects

1 1
I 1 I 1 I 1 1

r
1

-
Reli~lrilitv
Values 01 Distress
ISalPty FdCtorl

L i l r Cvclr Economic Analysis

Initial Cost
Maintpnmce Cosl

Distress

I
Modes of Distress

I
Relidhility

15afely Factor1

Prediction

Economic
Analysis

I
Lifp Cycle
Cost

Figure 1.1. Example Approach for the Development of a Mechanistic-Empirical Design Model
 Design of Pavement Structures

I
I
NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING
(DEFLECTION. CURVATURE EfC.1
z A
I
J

t
J
t

SAMPLING

ADJUST
MATERIAL ___c
--------TESTING
MATERIALS
PROPERTIES CHARACTERIZATION

COMPUTE
DEFLECTIONS
CURVATURE
* ETC
I
I 1
I
ADJUST MATERIAL
PROPERTIES
SEASONAL EFFECTS
LOAD

1
COMPUTE DISTRESS
DFTERMINANTS

t
i 1
n FATIGUE
(UNIT DAMAGE)

e
l TRAFFIC
T a TRAFFIC

REMAINING LIFE

DISTRESS
DETERMINANTS

t
A

Figure 1.2. Overlay Design Procedure Using Elastic Layered Theory to Represent Pavement Response
 Mechanistic-Empirical Design Procedures
acteristics and uncertainty, i.e., variance on each of
the inputs. Aging of materials and construction re-
quirements can be included in material characteris-
tics.
The process requires the selection of a series of
trial pavement sections, either rigid or flexible, which
are considered to include a range of thicknesses and
materials appropriate to the design problem. A struc-
tural (analytical) analysis is made for each trial sec-
tion to calculate the stress, strain, and deflection at
specific locations depending on distress criteria.
A working hypothesis or distress criteria must be
developed for each of the distress types to be predicted
by the procedure. For example, for fatigue cracking
the distress criteria for rigid pavements is based on the
maximum tensile stress in the slab and for flexible
pavements is based on the maximum tensile strain in
the asphalt concrete. Similar criteria have been
developed for each of the distress types shown on
Figure 1.1, i.e., fatigue cracking, rutting, faulting,
punchouts. The “others” refer to future developments
which can or will be developed.
Since Figure I . 1 represents the development
framework, it is necessary to calibrate the distress
models to field observations. This step will provide
information regarding the relationship of the pave-
ment response to various levels and amounts of dis-
tress. From these correlations, it has been possible to
establish mechanistic-empirical relationships for
estimating the type and amount of deterioration as a
function of the input variables.
Based on life-cycle predictions, it is possible to
calculate life-cycle costs according to procedures de-
scribed in Part I, Chapter 3, of this Guide. The frame-
work requires that several trial analyses be completed
in order to be able to interpolate for specific design
conditions and to select a best solution based on
performance and cost.
A similar procedure is illustrated for rehabilitation.
In this case, the method would require trial designs
appropriate for rehabilitation as a starting point. Wow-
ever, as with new construction, the inputs would
include traffic, roadbed soil properties, construction
requirements, etc.
Figure 1.1 represents the general framework which
has been used by most researchers to develop mecha-
nistic design procedures and which could be applied
by user agencies (state highway departments) as a
guide for in-house development.
In Figure 1.2, the general methodology proposed
by some investigators (15) for overlays is outlined.
The method is summarized briefly as follows:
Iv-7
Condition surveys and nondestructive testing
(deflections, curvature, etc.) information is
collected in order to identify analysis sections.
Sampling and testing of in-place material is
completed on a limited basis in order to adjust
material properties to field conditions.
Seasonal variations of material properties and
traffic are determined in order to calculate dis-
tress. The information used in this step would
come from research and development as repre-
sented in Figure 1.1.
The two types of distress used for design of the
asphalt overlay are rutting and fatigue crack-
ing. For example, if the original pavement had
been portland cement concrete, the criteria
used might be reflection cracking and rutting.
Based on the distress analysis, a determination
is made as to the need for a structural overlay:
if none is required, the worn-out pavement will
be renewed by recycling, milling, or a thin
overlay at minimum cost. If an overlay is
required, trial sections will be analyzed which
produce plots of traffic versus thickness re-
quirements needed to satisfy specific perform-
ance requirements, e.g., rutting not to exceed
0.5 inches and cracking, not more than 25
percent.
In summary, Figure 1.1 provides a set of guide-
lines, a framework, for developing mechanistic design
procedures. Other more detailed procedures may be
used; however, the general requirements will be the
same. Figure 1.2 illustrates the application of these
guidelines to a specific case, i.e., overlay of flexible
pavement. It is emphasized that these procedures
and applications are not new. The technical litera-
ture; American Society of Civil Engineers, Transpor-
tation Research Board, American Concrete Institute,
American Society for Testing and Materials, the As-
sociation of Asphalt Paving Technologists, as well as
various international conferences, all have a wealth
of background information pertinent to mecha-
nistic-empirical design developments. The technical
information is available; however, field trials are
limited,
1.4 IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of a mechanistic pavement
design procedure requires that consideration be given
to the following items:
IF8
(1) determination of types of design
considerations, i.e., cracking, roughness, etc.,
(2) development of a plan to obtain input
information, i.e., moduli,
(3) equipment acquisition,
(4) computer hardware and software,
(5) training personnel,
(6) development and calibration of prediction
models, and
(7) testing.
The implementation of the mechanistic procedures
could take several forms.
The procedures could be used to develop
(1)
design curves similar to those developed by
The Asphalt Institute, Shell International, or
the Kentucky Department of Transportation.
In this form, the analyst will presolve a larger
number of problems sufficient to develop de-
sign curves. The user is not required to do any
analytical work in order to prepare design
recommendations. A relatively simple step-by-
step procedure can be specified for design
which is very similar to procedures in Parts I1
and 111 of the Guide.
The procedures could be used in site-specific
(2)
cases to predict performance when conditions
exceed normal design criteria, e.g., excessive
loads on standard vehicles or any load on non-
standard vehicles.
The procedures could be used to answer “what
(3)
if” questions, e.g., what would be the effect of
increasing the legal axle load on performance
or what would be the effect of increased tire
pressure or what are the likely consequences of
noncompliance with specifications.
Once a user agency has the capability to use mecha-
nistic design procedures, it can be anticipated that
many additional applications will be found.
An agency should be aware that the development
implementation of mechanistic design procedures will
require a commitment of resources and, in general, it
will require special training for persons involved in
the implementation phase.
Principles of mechanistic design procedures for
flexible pavements have been developed through more
than 20 years of research. However, for implementa-
tion, some special attention will need to be given to
the seven items previously enumerated. A brief dis-
cussion of these items follows; agency personnel
should be aware that this is an overview and that varia-
tions are likely for any specific case.
Design of Pavement Structures
1.4.1 Design Considerations
Mechanistic design procedures can be applied to a
wide variety of pavement performance conditions as
described in Section 1.3. The dominant types of dis-
tress which can be predicted by mechanistic design
procedures relate to physical conditions caused by
traffic loadings or environment. Only one mechanistic
design procedure relates directly to the prediction of
ride quality, e.g., present serviceability index (PSI).
The VESYS program developed for FHWA has in-
cluded this capability but requires careful calibration.
For ride quality, other agencies have developed empir-
ical methods using calculations of stress, strain, or
deformation as independent variables for correlating
with field observations.
Thus, design considerations are best suited to phys-
ical distress. Only those distress types which control
performance or trigger some kind of maintenance or
rehabilitation need be considered. For example, for
asphalt concrete-surfaced pavements, fatigue crack-
ing, rutting, and possibly low temperature cracking
would be likely candidates. If one or more of these is
not a problem for the developing agency, it can be
eliminated. For rigid pavements, fatigue cracking,
faulting, and pumping would be considered.
A well-thought-out experiment design should be
prepared in obtaining input information. For example,
it will be desirable to develop regression equations to
predict modulus relationships for soils and paving ma-
terials. A well-planned experiment to include material
index values and in-place conditions will reduce the
amount of testing required for routine design. Similar
experiment designs for collecting pertinent tempera-
ture, rainfall, and traffic information will facilitate
development of simplified procedures to satisfy input
requirements.
In summary, decide what types of distress should
control design and establish threshold values for each
type, i.e., how much cracking or faulting is consid-
ered acceptable before maintenance or rehabilitation
costs become excessive.
1.4.2 Input Data
In order to make the necessary calculations, it will
be necessary to obtain information pertaining to mate-
rial properties, environment, and traffic patterns.
When obtaining information concerning material
properties, it will be necessary to acquire special test-
ing equipment if such equipment is not already on
hand. This equipment for laboratory and field testing
Mechanistic-Empirical Design Procedures
is commercially available and some laboratory equip-
ment can be fabricated in-house if preferred.
Equipment requirements will depend on data re-
quirements as follows:
Resilient Modulus of Soil and Granular Mate-
rials. Refers to laboratory repeated-load testing
equipment for cohesive and noncohesive soil and
granular materials. Both confined and unconfined test
capabilities will be required.
Resilient Modulus of Stabilized Materials. Re-
fers to laboratory repeated-load testing equipment for
asphalt concrete, portland cement concrete, and
materials stabilized with asphalt, cement, lime, lime-
flyash, or cement-flyash combinations.
Deflection Basin Measurement Equipment. Re-
fers to field testing equipment capable of measuring
the deflection basin several feet from the loading
plate, preferably at different load magnitudes includ-
ing the design truck wheel loading (e.g., 9,000
pounds). The deflection basin data can then be used
in conjunction with computer programs to “back
calculate” the in situ resilient moduli of the pavement
layers and the roadbed soil.
1.4.3 Equipment Acquisition
This refers to special equipment designed to facili-
tate field data collection, e.g., nondestructive testing
equipment, road meters, etc.
It will be important in obtaining the necessary
equipment to ensure the equipment is designed to fur-
nish the information needed by the mechanistic proce-
dure. In some situations, equipment owned by an
agency may not be suitable. There is a tendency to try
and establish correlations between pieces of equip-
ment to avoid replacement. Such correlations should
be discouraged since they will inevitably introduce
error into the procedure. If such correlations are con-
sidered to be imperative, they should be made using
well-planned experiment designs.
1.4.4 Computer Hardware and Software
Nearly all mechanistic design procedures will re-
quire some type of computer hardware and software to
perform the detailed computations that are necessary.
Most current procedures require a mainframe com-
puter. However, the capability of the latest personal
Iv-9
computer models will shortly make it possible to run
most mechanistic design procedures and structural
analysis programs on a desk-top personal computer.
This capability will have a profound impact on mak-
ing mechanistic design procedures much more user
friendly and accessible to the practicing highway
pavement design engineer.
The computer software for the new mechanistic
pavement design procedures must be installed on the
agency mainframe and/or personal computers. This is
normally not difficult with a well-documented pro-
gram. However, it is most important to verify care-
fully that the program is performing as required. Test
programs should be run where the correct solutions
are available for verification. In addition, the design
engineer should make numerous runs of the program
after changing the design inputs over a practical range
to evaluate the sensitivity of the design procedure to
changes in design inputs. This will not only help to
provide confidence in the design procedure, but also
show which inputs are most significant; that is, which
values should be determined accurately and which
ones can be estimated.
1.4.5 Training Personnel
Mechanistic design procedures may utilize con-
cepts, procedures, and equipment with which the
practicing pavement design engineer is not familiar.
Thus, it is often important that some training accom-
pany the implementation of the mechanistic design
procedure. This training could cover some or all of the
following:
structural analysis of pavements,
procedures for estimating distress or
pavement damage,
effects of climate on pavement performance,
nondestructive testing and interpretation,
use of computers (particularly personal
computers),
laboratory repeated-load testing methods and
interpretation,
(7) knowledge of basic materials properties
related to pavement design, and
pavement evaluation.
Some of the above information is available from
training courses provided by the National Highway
Institute of the Federal Highway Administration.
Also, a few universities offer short courses in pave-
ment design and rehabilitation that may cover several
zv-lo
of the above topics. Consultants are also available to
assist with “hands-on” training programs if needed.
1.4.6 Field Testing and Calibration
The most important step in the implementation pro-
cess is field testing and calibration of the predictive
models that are utilized in the mechanistic design pro-
cedure. Even though a mechanistic design procedure
is developed using basic material properties and struc-
tural analysis techniques, there are still numerous
assumptions and simplifications that must be made in
its development. In fact, most mechanistic procedures
actually include a combination of mechanistic and em-
pirical predictive models that are used in the design
process. For example, there is also the problem of
climate, which is so complex that it will never be
completely modeled in pavement design. Thus,
climate, aging, and other factors must be considered
empirically.
It is necessary to ensure that the predictive models
used in the mechanistic design procedure (e.g.,
fatigue cracking, rutting, joint deterioration, faulting)
actually give reasonable predictions for the geo-
graphic regions under consideration. Thus, climate,
materials, thickness combinations, and traffic should
be included in the experiment design for calibration.
If this verification/calibration testing is not accom-
plished, there is a risk that the mechanistic design
procedures will provide results that are not acceptable
or accurate.
An example calibration is summarized as follows:
Obtain data from at least 20 actual field test
pavements that have been selected with known
design, materials, traffic, and climate data.
The sections should range from extensive
distress to very little distress or overall deterio-
ration.
The inputs to the structural analysis model
should be obtained as specified in the design
procedure (e.g., strain, stress, strength, resil-
ient modulus, number of applied traffic loads,
climate, etc.) for each of the field pavement
sections.
Distress estimates should be computed for
each section using the appropriate output from
the structural analysis combined with damage
criteria.
Design of Pavement Structures
(4) The estimates are compared with actual field
observations of distress to determine calibra-
tion factors. A calibration procedure such as
this will result in realistic pavement designs
and will provide the needed confidence and
credibility for the mechanistic approach.
1.4.7 Testing
After the calibration process has been completed,
the prediction models developed for each distress type
should be tested on a wide range of projects for which
performance information is available. Some final ad-
justments in the distress models may be necessary as
part of this final step. The agency should maintain an
on-going program of data acquisition to continually
improve the system.
At the completion of this final testing, the agency
will have a verified, reliable mechanistic-empirical
design system with capabilities beyond the usual em-
pirical design methods,
1.5 SUMMARY
The benefits of implementing mechanistic-empiri-
cal design procedures for new pavement construction,
reconstruction, and/or rehabilitation are many. The
benefits occur on both the network pavement manage-
ment level as well as the project level. The key benefit
is in providing the designer with powerful tools to
evaluate the performance (specific distress types) of
different pavement designs, instead of relying solely
on limited empirical correlations or opinions.
Many different pavement design factors can be ex-
amined using a mechanistic design approach. Those
which improve the performance of individual pave-
ment components can be identified and a life-cycle
cost analysis conducted to determine the cost-
effectiveness of the design modification. Thus, mech-
anistic design has the potential to improve pavement
design and to provide more reliable design proce-
dures.
The widespread acquisition and use of personal
computers that are capable of handling mechanistic
design programs will also provide a much more user-
friendly and practical design environment for the
pavement designer. This is expected to greatly in-
crease the potential for use of mechanistic design pro-
cedures.
 REFERENCES FOR PART IV
1. Bradbury, R.D.,“Reinforced Concrete Pave-
ments,” Wire Reinforcement Institute, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1938.
2. Friberg, B.F., “Load and Deflection Charac-
teristics of Dowels in Transverse Joints of
Concrete Pavements,” Proceedings, Highway
Research Board, 1938.
3. Newmark, N.M., “Influence Charts for Com-
putation of Stresses in Elastic Foundations,”
University of Illinois Engineering Experiment
Station Bulletin 338, 1942,
4. Pickett, G., Raville, M.E., Janes, W.C., and
McCormick, F. J., “Deflection, Moments and
Reactive Pressures for Concrete Pavements,”
Kansas State College Experiment Station
Bulletin 65, 1951.
5 . Pickett, G., and Ray, G.K., “Influence Charts
for Rigid Pavements,” Transactions, ASCE,
1951.
6 . Burmister, D.M., “The Theory of Stresses and
Displacements in Layered Systems and Appli-
cation to the Design of Airport Runways,”
Proceedings, Highway Research Board, 1943.
7. McLeod, N.W., “Some Basic Problems in
Flexible Pavement Design,” Proceedings,
Highway Research Board, 1953.
8. Acum, W.E.A., and Fox, L., “Computation
of Load Stresses in a Three-Layer Elastic
System,” Geotechnique, Volume 2, pp. 293-
300, 1951.
9. Palmer, L.A., “The Evaluation of Wheel Load
Bearing Capacities of Flexible Types of
Pavements,” Proceedings, Highway Research
Board, 1946.
10. Southgate, H.F., Deen, R.C., and Havens,
J.H., “Development of a Thickness Design
System for Bituminous Concrete Pavements,”
Research Report UKTRP-8 1-20, Kentucky
Transportation Research Program, University
of Kentucky, November 1981.
11. “Thickness Design-Asphalt Pavements for
Highways and Streets,” The Asphalt Institute,
Manual Series No. 1, September 1981.
12. “Shell Pavement Design Manual,” Shell
International Petroleum Company, 1978.
13, “Thickness Design for Concrete Pavement,”
Portland Cement Association, 1966; with revi-
sions in 1984.
14. Van Til, C.J., McCullough, B.F., Vallerga,
B.A., and Hicks, R.G., “Evaluation of In-
terim Guides for Design of Pavement National
Cooperative Highway Program, 128, 1972.
15. Finn, EN., and Monismith, C.L., “Asphalt
Overlay Design Procedures; National Coop-
”
erative Highway Research Synthesis Report,
Project 20-5 (in publication, 1985).