Development of RStO-01 for Designing the Asphalt

Pavements in USA and Compare with AASHTO 1993

Peyman Ghasaei*, Shadan Kiani , Mohsen Aboutalebi Esfahani
1. Master of Engineer , Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineer, 1455 De
Maisonneuve Blvd W, Montreal. WC , H3G1M8 , Canada , Email: pghasaei@yahoo.com
2. M.Sc Student, Department of Transportation , Isfahan University, Isfahan , Iran ,
Email: shadankiani@yahoo.com
3. Assistant Professor, Department of Transportation , Isfahan University, Isfahan , Iran ,
Email: aboutalebi.mohsen@yahoo.com

Abstract
Although most procedures of pavement design of ASSHTO and RStO 01 depend in
general, on the design parameters such as traffic load, bearing capacity of soil or
subgrade, highway material characteristics and environmental conditions, they differ to
some extent in the details of the calculation methods. First, the research indicated the
main steps of RStO 01 pavement design procedure including determining the volume of
traffic loads, construction classes and thickness of different layers and parallel to that the
required degree of compaction and bearing capacity of different layers were investigated.
Then it highlighted the relevant differences between AASHTO and RStO by redesigning
a section of a defect asphalt pavement in Idaho (USA), primarily designed based on
AASHTO 1993, according to German catalogue (RStO 01).The Idea of selecting the state
of Idaho was based on similarity of some peripheral factors affecting the pavement design
such as annual average precipitation and temperature fluctuation in Idaho with state of
Bayern and specially city of München in Germany where RStO 01 was adopted. In other
words the approach was tried to make the peripheral conditions equal in order to reach a
comparable situation.
Keywords: AASHTO 1993, RStO 01, E-Modulus, Deformation modulus Ev2, Idaho (USA), München
(Germany)

Introduction
Worldwide, there are a variety of methods for identifying the traffic volume and
calculating pavement thicknesses, which are principally based on similar criteria. The term
‘’Pavement Design” or in English terminology “Structural Design” are used in meaning of
determining the required thickness of different layers in pavement and does not include the
asphalt mix design or the concrete mix design, although these issues naturally have an indirect
influence on the thickness design. Other conditions, e.g. frost sensitive materials, are also not
covered by pavement design, but are dealt with in parallel to the pavement design. The
methods that as of today are used to determine the required layer thicknesses can be grouped
in the following categories.1- Sound Engineering Judgment; 2- Standard (Catalogue)
Pavements; 3-Empirical Methods 4- Analytical-Empirical Methods and 5-Theoretical
Methods [1].
Easy and self-explanatory approach to road pavement design is behind the idea of
pavement design catalogue. Few inputs allow for pavement structure dimensioning.
Catalogues are based on empirical data and analytic calculations but what user sees is just
standardized boxes of different structures.[2] In many countries (e.g. Germany, France, in
1
Denmark for minor roads) the thickness design of a pavement is chosen from a catalogue of
standard constructions. One of the most famous catalogues which nowadays a majority of
pavement road guidelines in different countries use is ‘’German Catalogue’’ known as RStO
(Richtlinien für die Standardisierung des Oberbaues von Verkehrsflächen: Guidelines for the
standardization of the superstructure and roads).
The RStO 01 in Germany was released first by "German Research Society for Road and
Transportation" in 1986. The RStO is divided into five sections. In the first chapter general
topics are explained. The second section contains basic principles for the design of the
superstructure. The construction and renovation of the roads are offered in chapter three and
four. In the last chapter the new construction and renovation are specified by other traffic
areas. The RStO appendix contains of the procedure to calculate the design-relevant loading B
which is equivalent to ESAL’s in AASHTO code and some relative examples.
On the other side, the majority of state highway agencies use the design procedure
originally developed from results of the American Association of State Highway Officials
(AASHO) Road Test, set up in Illinois, USA in the late fifties [3]. That procedure, expanded
and updated at regular intervals, is now referred to as the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) procedure following the name change of
the organization [4] .The cost of setting up such an experiment today would be prohibitive,
and it will never be repeated.
Intermediate between empirical models and analytical-empirical models is the AASHTO
design method. It is actually an empirical model, but because it has been developed studying a
vast number of test pavement, there were tightly controlled with respect to knowledge of
pavement thicknesses, quality of the different materials in the pavement and exact knowledge
of the axle loading conditions and repetitions of loads, the method require special attention
[1].The AASHTO method, for flexible pavements and for rigid pavements, is still widely used
in USA today and speared significantly in many other countries which was rooted in the
following reasons: 1- The lack of their own national regulations in each country; 2- Fast
adaptation of the method in terms of statements about regional building material
characteristics, particularly in connection with testing equipment and procedures; 3- Easy and
comprehensive handling of the AASHTO rules because of widespread English language.

Procedure design of pavement based on RStO 01

This standard design is based on the forecasted traffic loads over a period of 30 years. The
number of standard axle loads through the 30th year is termed the load value, B, and this value
determines the construction class, which in turn determines the pavement layer thicknesses
required. The total pavement thickness to be constructed, according to the requirements of the
German catalog, is the sum of the thicknesses of the wearing surface (Asphalt or Concrete),
base course (Cement treated, asphalt treated or untreated), and frost protection layer. The
thickness of the frost protection layer depends on the climate of the region and the frost
sensitivity of the subsoil. [5]

Design relevant loading B Determination

Two methods are used for the determination of design relevant loading B (weighted
equivalent 10t-axle passes).
Method 1: to be used if only ATV (HGV) – data was available.

2
Method 2: needs the knowledge of detailed axle load data.
Both methods can be simplified by constant factors.

Method 1 - Determination of B by ATV (HGV) – data

Method 1.1 - Determination of B by variable factors
Determination of B will be carried out according the following formula:

Where N is the Service time in 30 years as a rule, qBm is the Load collective quotient
assigned to a road class. The quotient expresses the road class specific mean stress and strain
created by the axle passes,f3 is slope factor, ATV (HGV) is the average daily heavy traffic in the
year i (vehicles /24th), ATA (HGV) is the average daily number of axle passes of heavy traffic in
the year i (axles/24th), f Ai is the average number of axles per vehicle of heavy traffic (axle
number factor) in the year i, f 1i is the lane factor in the year i , f 2i is the Lane width factor in
the year I and pi is the annual growth of heavy traffic in the year i (For the first year p1 = 0).

Method 1.2: Determination of B by constant factors

The total service time N can be subdivided into partial time periods ni with constant values
for f1, f2, f3, fA, qBm and p for each time period. The calculation is presented as follow for each
time period (n > 1).

B = n ⋅ ATA (HGV) .q Bm .f1 .f2. f3 .fz. 365 with ATA (HGV) = ATA (HGV). fA

Where fz is determined according to if no growth of heavy traffic is

considered during the first year and determined according to if a

growth of heavy traffic is considered during the first year.
Method 2: Determination of design relevant loading B by axle load data
Method 2.1: Determination of B by variable factors
If there are detailed axle load data, B can be calculated according the following formula:

Where B is the equivalent 10t-axle passes during service time, N is the service time(30
years as a rule), f3 is the slope factor, EATA (HGV) is the average daily number of equivalent
axle passes of heavy traffic in the year i, ATA (HGV) I is the average daily number of axle
passes of heavy traffic in the year i (Axles/24h), k is the load class, defined as group of single
axles, Lk is the mean axle load for load class k, Lo is the Reference axle load(10t), f1i is the
lane factor in the year i and f2i is the lane width factor in the year i.

Method 2.2 - Determination of B by constant factors

3
 The total service time N can be subdivided into partial time periods ni with constant values
for f1, f2, f3 and p. The calculation is simplified for each time period (n>1).
B = n .EATA(HGV) f1 · f2 · f3 ·fz ·365

Where fz is determined according to if no growth of heavy traffic is

considered during the first year and determined according to if a

growth of heavy traffic is considered during the first year.

Construction classes
Traffic lanes and other traffic areas, except bicycles lanes and footpaths, are assigned to
the construction classes SV and I to VI according the stress and strain by traffic. According to
RStO the traffic areas can be classified into roadways, bus traffic areas, parking areas and
other traffic areas with respect to the appropriate construction class. The correlation between
the construction classes and the design relevant loading B in million equivalent 10 t-axle
passes for the roadways is presented in column 1 of table 8.The factor B shall be calculated for
the lane with the highest heavy traffic loading under consideration of number of lanes in the
cross section, lane width and Longitudinal slope.

Pavement layers according to RStO 01

The pavement is the structure which separates the tires of vehicles from the underlying
foundation material. The latter is generally the soil, but it may be structural concrete of a steel
bridge deck. Pavements over soil are normally of multilayer construction with relatively weak
materials below and progressively stronger ones above. Such an arrangement leads to the
economic use of available material. In Germany, in accordance with TStO-01 the pavements
have three main parts (Fig.1) including superstructure or surfacing and road base (Oberbau),
subbase (Unterbau) and subgrade (Untergrund).Based on other classification system in
Germany pavements have also been classified as flexible and rigid pavement. As indicated in
Figure 2, flexible pavements consist of three main layers as well as the bituminous surfacing,
the base (or road base) and the subbase. The surfacing is generally divided into the cover
course and the binder course layer separately. The base and subbase may also be laid in
composite form using different materials designated the upper and lower base or subbase.
Base course referred to as base of the cover divided in two categories which are base course
with binder agent and without binder agent. Where the soil is considered to be very weak, a
capping layer may also be introduced between the subbase and the soil foundation. The soil
immediately below the subbase is generally referred to as the subgrade and the surface of the
subgrade is termed the formation level. Formation is the interface between subbase and
subgrade of pavement [6].

4
 Figure 1: Typical parts of pavement in accordance with TstO-01[6]

Figure 2: Flexible pavement layers based on RStO 01[6]

Requirements for subgrade and criterions for different layers (Road base – Formation -
Subbase) in order to thickness determination
According to German catalogue the thickness of a road pavement will be determined in
such a way that the entire structure contains two main characteristics including sufficient
bearing performance against the traffic load and sufficient protection against the frost heave.
In other words the stress and strain induced by the traffic loads and changing the weather
conditions should remain in the acceptable zone.

1- Subgrade and subbase requirements

1-1. Frost protection requirements
The ground (soil or rock) immediately below subbase or formation level is generally
referred to as the subgrade in road construction. The subbase is an artificial manufactured soil
body between the subgrade and the surfacing; it is required when the planed height of
formation with the existing subgrade is not sufficient [6]. According to RStO 01 the frost
sensitivity means that the subgrade loose it’s bearing capacity during the thaw period. Table 1
shows that the subgrade/subbase soil is classified in three categories regarding to the frost
sensitivity after ZTVE-StB and in accordance with DIN 18196. When the subgrade/subbase is
frost sensitive such as F2 and F3, it is essential to determine the thickness of protection
material needed to prevent penetration of frost into the subgrade.

5
 Table 1: Soil classification base on frost sensitivity

Frost sensitivity Frost sensitivity Soil Groups (DIN 18196)

classification
F1 Not frost sensitive GW,GI,GE,SW,SI,SE
F2 Low to intermediate frost TA,OT,OH,OK,ST,GT,SU,GU
sensitive
F3 High frost sensitive TL,TM,UL,UM,UA,OU,ST,GT,SU,GU

If the subbase or the upper part of subgrade contains the soil sensitive class F1 over the
soil sensitive classes F2 and F3 under the following conditions the F1 sensitive class soil can
be considered as the frost protection layer:1-The F1 layer has the frost protection layer
characteristics to protect from freezing or according to ZTV T-StB the F1 be compacted [7];
2- The F1 thickness will be the same as minimum layer thickness of frost protection layer
derive from the table 10 in the following sections. Also According to table 6 for the soil
classes F2 and F3 the deformation modulus on the formation (Planum) is required at least Ev2
= 45 MN/m2. Construction the fully bound surfacing (oberbau) with soils of frost sensitivity
class 3 or soils of frost sensitivity class 2 with unfavorable water ratio, a minimum thickness
of solidification of subsoil as well as subbase (unterbau) is 15cm [6].

1-2. Degree of compaction requirements

The natural subsoil for a road is normally not always sufficient to the requirements on
quality, for example stiffness, density, permeability. Therefore they must be improved, and
one of popular method as a direct examination is compaction. After DIN 18 127, compaction
is in the meaning of the increase of dry density of soil by artificial or mechanical effects. As a
rule the degree of compaction, DPr , serves as characteristic property of compaction process
which is dependent on grain size contribution, size quality and water content and for fine soils
is related additionally to plastic properties.Dpr can be calculated as follow:

Where is the dry density of the tested soil and is the proctor density of the soil. In
accordance with ZTV E – StB the requirement with regard to degree of compaction will be
indicated in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 2: Requirements for 10% minimum quanitity1 of degree of compaction Dpr for coarse
grain soil [8].
Area Soil group Dpr in %
1 The formation (Planum) up to 1m deep of GW, GI, GE, SW, SI, SE 100
Dams and 0,5m deep of excavation
2 1.0m under the formation up to dam-foot. GW, GI, GE, SW, SI, SE 98

1
Minimum quantity: minimum quantity is the smallest admissible quantity; under this the distribution is not
more admissible as the pre-determined portion of characteristic values.

6
 Table 3: Requirement for 10% minimum quantity1 of Compression-degree Dpr for mixed-and
fine grain soils [8]

Area Soil Group Dpr in %

1 The formation up to 0,5m deep GU,GT,SU,ST 100
GU,GT,SU,ST,U,T, OK, OU, 97
OT
2 0,5m under the formation up to dam-foot. GU,GT,SU,ST, OH, OK 97
GU,GT,SU,ST,U, T, OU, OT 95

In some cases as a consequence of difficulty to implement or time consuming instead of

proctor test other tests as well as static plate load test and dynamic plate load test will be
implemented. With the application of static plate load test after DIN 18134 in accordance
with ZTVE-StB, the standard values for the relation between degree of compaction, DPr, and
deformation modulus, Ev2, as well between degree of compaction, DPr, and ratio value of
Ev2/Ev1 (the procedure for determining Ev1 and Ev2 from the plate load test is presented in Fig
3) are given in table 4.

Table 4: Standard value of Compression degree, DPr, in dependence on degree of compaction

and deformation modulus, Ev2, for assignment of the sandy soil group
Soil groups Degree of compaction Deformation modulus Ev2 Relationship value
DPr In % In MN/m2 Ev2/Ev1
GW, GI ≥ 100 ≥ 100 ≤2.3
≥ 98 ≥ 80 ≤2.5
≥ 97 ≥ 70 ≤2.6
GE, SE, SW, SI ≥ 100 ≥ 80 ≤2.3
≥ 98 ≥ 70 ≤2.5
≥ 97 ≥ 60 ≤2.6

Figure 3: Example for evaluating a plate test [9].

1-3. Bearing capacity requirements

The deformation modulus, Ev2, on the formation demanded after ZTVE-StB must be
gained for proof of an efficient bearing capacity. The requirements of the deformation
modulus on the formation are given in table 5. In cases the deformation modulus in
accordance with table 5 is not achieved, the subgrade must be improved or solidified.

7
Table 5: requirements for the deformation modulus on the formation in accordance with ZTVE-
StB
Frost sensitivity class of soils Construction class in accordance with RStO Ev2 [MN/m2]
F1 SV, I to IV ≥ 120, ≥ 1002
V, VI ≥ 100, ≥ 802
F2,F3 SV, I to VI ≥ 45
2- Requirements on the base course without bounder agent
2-1. Grain size distribution requirements
The requirements in accordance with grain size distribution of frost protection layer,
gravel- and macadam base courses are presented in ZTVT-StB 86.Based on the acceptable
grain size distribution classification, the frost protection layer soil is divided in three
categories a), b) and c).Also the gravel and macadam base course containing 0/32, 0/45 and
0/56 grain size distribution is range in acceptable zone for road construction.
2-2. Degree of compaction and bearing capacity requirements
Requirements according to degree of compaction and the ratio value Ev2/Ev1 and the
required deformation modulus on the frost protection layer, gravel- and macadam base
courses are presented in table 6.

Table 6: Requirements on degree of compaction and the ratio value Ev2/Ev1 and deformation
modulus Ev2 on the types of base course accordance with ZTVT-StB [7]

Type of base course

Deformation Modulus Feature Frost protection Gravel base course Macadam base
s layers course
MN/m2
Ev2 ≥ 45 MN/m2
On the formation
- class SV,I to IV ≥120 ≥150 ≥150
- class V and VI ≥100 ≥120 ≥120
Ev2 ≥ 120 MN/m2 ,
On frost protection layer
h ≥ 15 cm
h ≥ 20 cm - ≥150 ≥150
h ≥ 25 cm - ≥180 ≥180
Ev2 ≥ 100 MN/m2 ,
On frost protection layer
h ≥ 15 cm
h ≥ 20 cm - ≥120 ≥120
h ≥ 25 cm - ≥150 ≥150
Footpath- and bike lane - ≥80 ≥80
Zones
a) surface of frost protection
layer to 0,2m depth for GW,
GI as well as material
mixtures from broken sand,
grit and if necessary macadam

2
When it is proved by separate examinations that the higher requirement values are obtained after the
installation and compaction of following layers

8
of grain size 0/5 to 0/56,
construction class SV, I to V DPr ≥103%
Ev2/Ev ≤2.2
1
Construction class VI, DPr ≥120
footpath-and bike lane for
GW, SE, SW,SI
Ev2/Ev ≤2.5
1
Construction class SV, I to VI, DPr ≥100%
footpath-and bike lane
Ev2/Ev ≤2.5
1
b) below zone a) for every DPr ≥100%
material mixture of zone a)
Ev2/Ev ≤2.5
1
Construction class SV, I to VI DPr ≥103% ≥103%
as
well as footpath-and bike lane
Ev2/Ev ≤2.2 ≤2.2
1

Determination of minimum pavement thickness over F2 and F3 subgrades

In order to prevent loss of bearing capacity from freezing heave occurred during the
thawing period; the total thickness of pavement (Frost protection layer (Subbase) + bearing
layer (Base) + wearing layer(Surface)) with respect to the frost sensitive class and building
class must be achieved the minimum value (Table 7).
Table 7: The minimum thickness of frost protection layer regarding to the frost sensitivity class

Line Frost sensitive class Thickness in cm for construction classes

SV/I/II III/IV V/VI
1 F2 55 50 40
2 F3 65 60 50

The standardized pavement constructions with asphalt over F2- and F3-
subgrade/embankment for carriageways are included in table 1 of RStO 01 manual guide with
respect to the construction classes.

9
Case study
In order to reach an adequate comparison in results between the AASHTO 1993 and RStO
01, an example of redesigning a section road in Idaho (USA) according to AASHTO and
RStO was investigated. Idaho was selected for the comparison due to the similarity of annual
weather conditions with the Bayern and specially the city of München in Germany where the
RStO as an official road design guide in Germany was adopted. In this approach the following
assumptions were also taken into account: 1- The asphalt layer features implemented in this
study are approximately in the identical rage. 2- The characteristics of implemented soil in
base and subbase layers such as gradation curve, degree of compaction and Bearing capacity
(deformation modulus and CBR-value) assumed to be in the identical range for both methods.
In other words by choosing Idaho having the most similarities to a specific region in Germany
(Munich) and taking into account the mentioned assumptions it was confirmed that both
design methods (AASHTO 1993 and RStO 01) were applicable for Idaho.
Due to the differences between the propose service life (20 years) and design service life
(30 years) in RStO catalogue and the type of equivalent axle passes in case study (8.2 t) and in
catalogue (10 t) an adjustment needed to be carry out on the construction classes with respect
to the number of EASL (table 8).The input data and results from pavement design according
to both methods are indicated in table 9.The pavement thickness for different layers was
calculated based on the basic design equations of the AASHTO 1993 and two solutions were
presented as solution 1 and 2.In 3rd column of table 9 the RStO catalogue was used in order to
determine the different layer thickness for propose asphalt pavement.
Table 8: Construction classes classified based on the equivalent 10-8.2 t axle passes during
maximum service life of 20-30 years [10]
1 2 3 4
Construction class Equivalent 10t-axle Equivalent 8.2t-axle Equivalent 10t-axle Equivalent 8.2t-axle
passes in Mio passes in Mio passes in Mio passes in Mio
during maximum during maximum during maximum during maximum
service life of 30 service life of 30 service life of 20 service life of 20
years years years years
SV > 32 > 71 > 48 > 107
I > 10-32 > 22-71 > 15-48 > 33-107
II > 3-10 > 6.6-22 > 4.5-15 > 9.9-33
III > 0.8-3 > 1.8-6.6 > 1.2-4.5 > 2.7-9.9
IV > 0.3-0.8 > 0.7-1.8 > 0.45-1.2 > 1.1-2.7
V > 0.1-0.3 > 0.2-0.7 > 0.15-0.45 > 0.3-1.1
VI ≤ 0.1 ≤ 0.2 ≤ 0.15 ≤ 0.3

Table 9: Input data and pavement design results according to AASHTO 1993 and RStO 01

AASHTO 1993 RStO 01

Solution 1 Solution 2
Design life (N) , years 20 20 20
Standard Deviation (S0) 0.35 0.35
Design Reliability (R), 95 95 -

10
%
Design ESLAs (8.2 ton) 5×106 5×106 5×106
Construction class - - Class III
ΔPSI (Loss of Service- 1.9 1.9 -
Survivability)
Mr (psi) 5000 5000 -
Structural Number (SN) 5.0 5.0 -
SN1 - 2.8 -
SN2 - 3.7 -
D1=SN1/a1 - 18cm -
D2=(SN2- SN1)/a2 - 17cm -
D3=(SN-SN2)/a3 - 30cm -
Elastic Modulus (Ei) - -
E Asphalt 400,000 psi = 2,800 400,000 psi = 2,800 MN/m2 -
MN/m2
E Unbound base course 30,000 psi = 210 MN/m2 30,000 psi = 210 MN/m2 -
E Subbase 14,000 psi = 100 MN/m2 14,000 psi = 100 MN/m2 -
Structural layer -
Coefficient (ai)
a1 (Asphalt layer) 0.42 0.42 -
a2 (Unbound base 0.14 0.14 -
course)
a3 (Subbase) 0.11 0.11 -
Drainage Coefficients
(mi)
m2 1.0 - -
m3 1.0 - -
Mr (psi), Base 40,000 40,000 -
Mr (psi), Subbase 35,000 35,000 -
Mr (psi), Subgrade 3,930 3,930 -
D1 14 cm - -
D2 25 cm - -
D3 30 cm - -
D1-1 (Asphalt wearing 4cm 4cm 4 cm
couse)
D1-3 (Asphalt bounder) - 4cm 4 cm
D1-3 (Asphalt base 10 cm 10cm 10 cm
course)
D2 (Granular base – 25cm 17cm 15 cm
unbound base course)
D3 (Subbase) 30cm 30cm 32 cm

Table 9 shows that number of equivalent 8.2 t-axle passes during 20 years (15,000,000
ESALs) represented the construction class III. The next step is determining the appropriate
section containing different layer thicknesses from the asphalt pavement table cross sections
design in RStO. In the catalogue construction class III was selected and from 5 alternatives,
Line number 3 which is an arrangement of four layers (Asphalt wearing course + Asphalt
bounder course + Asphalt base course + Crush stone base course + Subbase) was highlighted
(Fig 4).

11
 Figure 4: Pavement design result according to RStO 01

Conclusion
Although in general both AASHTO and RStO 01 contain similar parameters applied in
pavement as well as traffic load, bearing capacity of the subsoil or substructure, material
characteristics and environmental conditions, they differ in the details of the calculation
methods. The aim of this study was to first identify the basic approach of design a flexible
pavement based on the RStO 01 method and on the other hand, determine the similarities and
differences between AASHTO 1993 and RStO 01 which is classified in tabular format in
Table 10.
Table 10: Significant differences between AASHTO 1993 and RStO 01
Factor RStO 01 AASHTO 1993
Traffic load:
Standard axle load 10 t 8.2 t
Equivalent factor for the standard axle pass (x/10)4 Value from table (x/10)n
Maximum equivalent axle passes in Mio ≥32 = 50
Minimum equivalent axle passes in Mio ≤0.1 = 0.05
Statistic values:
Design Reliability, % X 
Standard normal deviation , % X 
Subgrade bearing capacity
E-Modulus Static plate load test - E- Modulus different layers
Deformation Modulus on identified
the formation - Resilient Modulus Mr (No
Ev2≥45 MN/m2 limits are specified for Mr
(Table 6) and determined from one
year experimental results)
E-Modulus determination through correlation Degree of compaction Dpr Texas-Triaxial
with: CBR value
R-Value
Tests: Proctor test CBR-test
Modified proctor test Triaxial-test
Static plate load test
Dynamic plate load te
Examination of sinking
with Benkelman- Balken
Surface protection
dynamic compaction
control (FDVK)
Acceptable gradation curve for base course 0/32, 0/45, 0/56 A-1 , A-2 , A-3
(Excellent to Good)
Thickness layers:
Asphalt surface layer Constant = 4 cm Normally equal to 4cm
Asphalt bounder course Constant for each Variable based on E-modulus

12
 construction class
Asphalt base course Constant for each
construction class
Granular base – crush stone base Constant = 15 cm
Frost blanket layer (subbase) Variable based on the
frost sensitivity of the top
layers
or structural layer coefficient
(ai) of each layer
Variable based on E-modulus
or structural layer coefficient
(ai) of each layer
Variable based on E-modulus
or structural layer coefficient
(ai) of each layer
Variable based on E-modulus
or structural layer coefficient
(ai) of each layer

From the case study it is concluded that, one of the major advantages of AASHTO 1993 is
a great flexibility of design; truly speaking there would be more alternatives in selecting
material for the layers and changing material characteristics since in RStO 01 the type of
materials are restricted by the catalogue and it is not possible to introduce new material as the
consequence of such change cannot be predicted. Therefore by substituting the conventional
material with recycle material or artificial ones, the correspondence material characteristics
such as E-Modulus, layer coefficient (ai) and drainage coefficient (mi) should be replaced.
By clarifying the steps of design as the background of German catalogue and from the
final results of case study (Solution 1) it is agreed that the thickness design according to RStO
01 will most often be uneconomically as the catalogue has to cover a wide range of subgrade
and traffic conditions, and therefore are designed for the ‘’worst case’’ of those conditions.
At the end for the future study it is recommended that by implementing the sensitive
analysis tool the conditions in which German catalogue behaves conservative or aggressive
will be identified.

Appreciation
The authors would like to thank LUCOBIT.AG for their great cooperation and assistance
in carrying out the work.

References
[1] Pavement Design Report, Project No 42145 , REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATION PAVEMENT SPECIALIST FOR DETAILED
DESIGN OF TRANCHE 1 PROJECT UNDER THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD CORRIDOR
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
[2] J. Barbars, "Development pf Pavement Design Catalouge," Latvian State Road .
[3] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures, Washington, D.C., 1986
[4] J. Harvey and F. Long , "CAL/APT PROGRAM ─ COMPARISON OF CALTRANS
AND AASHTO PAVEMENT DESIGN METHODS," California DEpartment of
Transportation, 1999.

13
[5] Expertise regarding road engineering for services to the government of Malta , Directives
for the standardization of pavements for the traffic areas , Prof. Dr. Klaus Müller, Edition
2000
[6] M. Quynh, "Möglichkeiten yur Bewertung des Zustandes von Strassenbauten (Bau und
Rekonstruktion) unter Einbeziehung seismiccher Messungen," June 2005.
[7] ZTVT-StB 86, Zusätzliche Technische Vertragsbedingungen und Richtlinien für
Tragschichten im Straßenbau, Der Bundesministerium für Verkehr, 1986.
[8] ZTVE-StB 94 , Zusätzliche Technische Vertragsbedingungen und Richtlinien für
Erarbeiten im Straßenbau , Ausgabe 1994.
[9] C. Adam , D. Adam , F. Kopf and I. Paulmichl, "Computational validationof static and
dynamic plate load testing," ACta Geotechnica , pp. 35-55, 2009.
[10] M.Randenberg and Sh.Jendia, "Grundlagen der Dimensionierung von Verkehrsflchen
nach dem AASHTO-Verfahren und vergleichende Betrachtungen mit RstO 01," Strasse und
Autobahn 12, pp 885-891, 2010.

14