1993 AASHTO Flexible Pavement Structural Design

Empirical equations are used to relate observed or measurable phenomena (pavement characteristics) with outcomes
(pavement performance). This article presents the 1993 AASHTOGuide basic design equation for flexible
pavements. This empirical equation is widely used and has the following form:

This equation is not the only empirical equation available but it does give a good sense of what an empirical equation
looks like, what factors it considers and how empirical observations are incorporated into an empirical equation. The
rest of this section will discuss the specific assumptions, inputs and outputs associated with the 1993
AASHTO Guide flexible pavementempirical design equation. The following subsections discuss:

• Assumptions
• Inputs
• Outputs

Assumptions
From the AASHO Road Test, equations were developed which related loss in serviceability, traffic, and pavement
thickness. Because they were developed for the specific conditions of the AASHO Road Test, these equations have
some significant limitations:

• The equations were developed based on the specific pavement materials and roadbed soil present at the
AASHO Road Test.
 • The equations were developed based on the environment at the AASHO Road Test only.
• The equations are based on an accelerated two-year testing period rather than a longer, more typical 20+
year pavement life. Therefore, environmental factors were difficult if not impossible to extrapolate out to a
longer period.
• The loads used to develop the equations were operating vehicles with identical axle loads and configurations,
as opposed to mixed traffic.

In order to apply the equations developed as a result of the AASHO Road Test, some basic assumptions are needed:

• The characterization of subgrade support may be extended to other subgrade soils by an abstract soil support
scale.
• Loading can be applied to mixed traffic by use of ESALs.
• Material characterizations may be applied to other surfaces, bases, and subbases by assigning appropriate
layer coefficients.
• The accelerated testing done at the AASHO Road Test (2-year period) can be extended to a longer design
period.

When using the 1993 AASHTO Guide empirical equation or any other empirical equation, it is extremely important to
know the equation’s limitations and basic assumptions. Otherwise, it is quite easy to use an equation with conditions
and materials for which it was never intended. This can lead to invalid results at the least and incorrect results at the
worst.

Inputs
The 1993 AASHTO Guide equation requires a number of inputs related to loads, pavement structure and subgrade
support. These inputs are:

• The predicted loading. The predicted loading is simply the predicted number of 80 kN (18,000 lb.) ESALs that
the pavement will experience over its design lifetime.

• Reliability. The reliability of the pavement design-performance process is the probability that a pavement
section designed using the process will perform satisfactorily over the traffic and environmental conditions
for the design period (AASHTO, 1993[1]). In other words, there must be some assurance that a pavement will
perform as intended given variability in such things as construction, environment and materials. The ZR and
Sovariables account for reliability.

• Pavement structure. The pavement structure is characterized by the Structural Number (SN). The Structural
Number is an abstract number expressing the structural strength of a pavement required for given
combinations of soil support (MR), total traffic expressed in ESALs, terminal serviceability and
environment. The Structural Number is converted to actual layer thicknesses (e.g., 150 mm (6 inches)
of HMA) using a layer coefficient (a) that represents the relative strength of the construction materials in that
layer. Additionally, all layers below the HMA layer are assigned a drainage coefficient (m) that represents the
relative loss of strength in a layer due to its drainage characteristics and the total time it is exposed to near-
saturation moisture conditions. Generally, quick-draining layers that almost never become saturated can
have coefficients as high as 1.4 while slow-draining layers that are often saturated can have drainage
coefficients as low as 0.40. Keep in mind that a drainage coefficient is basically a way of making a specific
layer thicker. If a fundamental drainage problem is suspected, thicker layers may only be of marginal benefit
– a better solution is to address the actual drainage problem by using very dense layers (to minimize water
infiltration) or designing a drainage system. Because of the peril associated with its use, often times the
drainage coefficient is neglected (i.e., set as m = 1.0).

• Serviceable life. The difference in present serviceability index (PSI) between construction and end-of-life is
the serviceability life. The equation compares this to default values of 4.2 for the immediately-after-
construction value and 1.5 for end-of-life (terminal serviceability). Typical values used now are:
 Post-construction: 4.0 – 5.0 depending upon construction quality, smoothness, etc.
End-of-life (called “terminal serviceability”): 1.5 – 3.0 depending upon road use (e.g., interstate highway,
urban arterial, residential)

• Subgrade support. Subgrade support is characterized by the subgrade’s resilient modulus(MR). Intuitively,
the amount of structural support offered by the subgrade should be a large factor in determining the
required pavement structure.

Outputs
The 1993 AASHTO Guide equation can be solved for any one of the variables as long as all the others are
supplied. Typically, the output is either total ESALs or the required Structural Number (or the associated pavement
layer depths). To be most accurate, the flexible pavement equation described in this chapter should be solved
simultaneously with the flexible pavement ESALequation. This solution method is an iterative process that solves for
ESALs in both equations by varying the Structural Number. It is iterative because the Structural Number (SN) has two
key influences:

1. The Structural Number determines the total number of ESALs that a particular pavement can support. This is
evident in the flexible pavement design equation presented in this section.
2. The Structural Number also determines what the 80 kN (18,000 lb.) ESAL is for a given load.

Therefore, the Structural Number is required to determine the number of ESALs to design for before the pavement is
ever designed. The iterative design process usually proceeds as follows:

1. Determine and gather flexible pavement design inputs (ZR, So, ΔPSI and MR).
2. Determine and gather flexible pavement ESAL equation inputs (Lx, L2x, G).
3. Assume a Structural Number (SN).
4. Determine the equivalency factor for each load type by solving the ESAL equation using the assumed SN for
each load type.
5. Estimate the traffic count for each load type for the entire design life of the pavement and multiply it by the
calculated ESAL to obtain the total number of ESALs expected over the design life of the pavement.
6. Insert the assumed SN into the design equation and calculate the total number of ESALs that the pavement
will support over its design life.
7. Compare the ESAL values in #5 and #6. If they are reasonably close (say within 5 percent) use the assumed
SN. If they are not reasonably close, assume a different SN, go to step #4 and repeat the process.

In practice, the flexible pavement design equation is usually solved independently of the ESAL equation by using an
ESAL value that is assumed independent of structural number. Although this assumption is not true, pavement
structure depths calculated using it are reasonably accurate. This design process usually proceeds as follows:

1. Assume a structural number (SN) for ESAL calculations. Although often not overtly stated, a structural
number must be assumed in order to calculate ESALs.
2. Determine the load equivalency factor (LEF) for each load type by solving the ESAL equation using the
assumed SN for each load type. Typically, a standard set of load types is used (e.g., single unit trucks, tractor-
trailer trucks and buses).
3. Estimate the traffic count for each load type for the entire design life of the pavement and multiply it by the
calculated LEF to obtain the total number of ESALs expected over the design life of the pavement.
4. Determine and gather flexible pavement design inputs (ZR, So, ΔPSI and MR).
5. Solve the design equation for SN.
6. Check to see that the computed SN value is reasonably close to that assumed for ESAL calculations. This step
of often neglected.
1993 AASHTO Rigid Pavement Structural Design
Empirical equations are used to relate observed or measurable phenomena with outcomes. There are many different
types of empirical equations available today but this section will present the 1993 AASHTO Guide basic design
equation for rigid pavements as an example. This equation is widely used and has the following form (see Figure 6.5
for the nomograph form)

Assumptions
From the AASHO Road Test, equations were developed which related loss in serviceability, traffic, and pavement
thickness. These equations were developed for the specific conditions of the AASHO Road Test and therefore
involved some significant limitations:

• The equations were developed based on the specific pavement materials and roadbed soil present at the
AASHO Road Test.
• The equations were developed based on the environment at the AASHO Road Test only.
 • The equations are based on an accelerated two-year testing period rather than a longer, more typical
20+ year pavement life. Therefore, environmental factors were difficult if not impossible to extrapolate
out to a longer period.
• The loads used to develop the equations were operating vehicles with identical axle loads and
configurations, as opposed to mixed traffic.
• For JPCP and JRCP, all transverse joints were the same spacing. JPCP was 4.6 m (15 ft) and JRCP was 12.2
m (40 ft). All
transverse joints used dowel bars.
• All PCC was of the same mix design and used the same aggregate and portland cement.

In order to apply the equations developed as a result of the AASHO Road Test, some basic assumptions are
needed:

• The characterization of subgrade support may be extended to other subgrade soils by an abstract soil
support scale.
• Loading can be applied to mixed traffic by use of ESALs.
• Material characterizations may be applied to other surfaces, bases, and subbases by assigning
appropriate values.
• The accelerated testing done at the AASHO Road Test (2-year period) can be extended to a longer design
period.

When using the 1993 AASHTO Guide empirical equation or any other empirical equation, it is extremely
important to know the equation’s limitations and basic assumptions. Otherwise, it is quite easy to use an
equation with conditions and materials for which it was never intended. This can lead to invalid results at the
least and incorrect results at the worst.

Inputs
The 1993 AASHTO Guide equation requires a number of inputs related to loads, pavement structure and subgrade
support. These inputs are:

• The predicted loading. The predicted loading is simply the predicted number of 80 kN (18,000 lb.) ESALs that
the pavement will experience over its design lifetime.
• Reliability. The reliability of the pavement design-performance process is the probability that a pavement
section designed using the process will perform satisfactorily over the traffic and environmental conditions
for the design period (AASHTO, 1993[1]). In other words, there must be some assurance that a pavement will
perform as intended given variability in such things as construction, environment and materials. The ZR and
Sovariables account for reliability.
• PCC elastic modulus. If no value is known, the PCC elastic modulus (Ec) can be estimated from relationships
such as the following:

• PCC modulus of rupture (flexural strength). The modulus of rupture (S’c) is typically obtained from a flexural
strength test.
• Slab depth. The pavement structure is best characterized by slab depth (D). The number of ESALs a rigid
pavement can carry over its lifetime is very sensitive to slab depth. As a general rule, beyond about 200 mm
 (8 inches) the load carrying capacity of a rigid pavement doubles for each additional 25 mm (1 inch) of slab
thickness.
• Drainage coefficient. Rigid pavement is assigned a drainage coefficient (Cd) that represents the relative loss
of strength due to its drainage characteristics and the total time it is exposed to near-saturation moisture
conditions. Generally, quick-draining layers that almost never become saturated can have coefficients as
high as 1.2 while slow-draining layers that are often saturated can have drainage coefficients as low as
0.80. If subsurface drainage is expected to be a problem, positive drainage measures should be taken. In
general, the use of drainage coefficients to overcome poor drainage conditions is not recommended (i.e.
more slab thickness does not necessarily solve water-related problems). Because of the peril associated with
its use, often times the drainage coefficient is neglected (i.e., set as Cd = 1.0).
• Serviceable life. The difference in present serviceability index (PSI)between construction and end-of-life is
the serviceability life. The equation compares this to default values of 4.2 for the immediately-after-
construction value and 1.5 for end-of-life (terminal serviceability). Typical values used now are:
o Post-construction: 4.0 – 5.0 depending upon construction quality, smoothness, etc.
o End-of-life (called “terminal serviceability” and designated “pt“): 1.5 – 3.0 depending upon road use
(e.g., interstate highway, urban arterial, residential)
• Load transfer coefficient (J Factor). This accounts for load transfer efficiency. Essentially, the lower the J
Factor the better the load transfer.
• Modulus of subgrade reaction. The modulus of subgrade reaction (k) is used to estimate the “support” of
the PCC slab by the layers below. Usually, an “effective” k (keff) is calculated which reflects base, subbase and
subgrade contributions as well as the loss of support that occurs over time due to erosion and stripping of
the base, subbase and subgrade. Typically, large changes in keff have only a modest impact on PCC slab
thickness.

Outputs
The 1993 AASHTO Guide equation can be solved for any one of the variables as long as all the others are
supplied. Typically, the output is either total ESALs or the required slab depth (D). In design, the rigid pavement
equation described in this chapter is typically solved simultaneously with the rigid pavement ESAL equation. The
solution is an iterative process that solves for ESALs in both equations by varying the slab depth (D). The solution is
iterative because the slab depth (D) has two key influences:

1. The slab depth (D) determines the total number of ESALs that a particular pavement can support. This is
evident in the rigid pavement design equation presented in this section.
2. The slab depth also determines what the equivalent 80 kN (18,000 lb.) single axle load is for a given load.

Therefore, the slab depth (D) is required to determine the number of ESALs to design for before the pavement is ever
designed. The iterative design process usually proceeds as follows:

1. Determine and gather rigid pavement design inputs (ZR, So, DPSI, pt, Ec, S’c, J, Cd and keff).
2. Determine and gather rigid pavement ESAL equation inputs (Lx, L2x, G)
3. Assume a slab depth (D).
4. Determine the equivalency factor for each load type by solving the ESAL equation using the assumed slab
depth (D) for each load type.
5. Estimate the traffic count for each load type for the entire design life of the pavement and multiply it by the
calculated ESAL to obtain the total number of ESALs expected over the design life of the pavement.
6. Insert the assumed slab depth (D) into the design equation and calculate the total number of ESALs that the
pavement will support over its design life.
7. Compare the ESAL values in #5 and #6. If they are reasonably close (say within 5 percent) use the assumed
slab depth (D). If they are not reasonably close, assume a different slab depth (D), go to step #4 and repeat
the process.