3

Flexible Pavement Thickness

Design

3.1 Introduction

The thickness design of highway pavements requires the following large number of
complex factors to be considered.
(I) The magnitude and number of repetitions of the applied wheel loads and
the contact area between the tyre carrying the load and the road surface.
(2) The stiffness, stability, durability, the elastic and plastic deformation and
resistance to fatigue loading of the pavement layers.
(3) Volumetric changes in the subgrade due to climatic changes, the
deformation of the subsoil under load and the ability of the pavement layers to
reduce the stress imposed on the subsoil by the wheel loads.
( 4) The severity and incidence of frost and rainfall.
While considerable progress has been made in the development of structural
theory to the design of highway pavements, the complexity of the many factors
involved in practical highway design has resulted in the adoption of many thickness-
design methods based on experience.

3.2 Failure Criteria

In any pavement-thickness design method there must be a criterion for the terminal
or failure condition of a pavement. This criteria is also of considerable importance
in highway maintenance work because the maintenance engineer is interested in a
pre-failure condition at which strengthening of the pavement will result in a
prolonged life.
The definition of these two conditions for flexible pavements in the United
Kingdom has been described by Croney .1 Using the results from full-scale experi-
ments on public highways in the United Kingdom, it was found that permanent
deformation of approximately 20 mm in the nearside wheel tracks of a flexible

57
R. J. Salter, Highway Design and Construction
© R.J. Salter 1988
58 HIGHWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

pavement when measured using a 1.8 m straight edge was normally accepted as the
point at which pavement reconstruction was considered necessary.
It was also noted that when the deformation had reached this level, the normally
used rolled asphalt wearing courses were beginning to crack. Because of water
penetration the pavement subsequently deteriorated relatively rapid. Open-textured
macadams with less-viscous binders did not suffer from cracking to the same extent
but once again deformation progressed rapidly once a value of 20 mm had been
reached.
Defining the critical condition was found to be more difficult but it was noted
that overlays were being applied on British highways when the deformation in the
nearside wheel track was between 10 and 20 mm. At this deformation cracking was
generally limited and confined to longitudinal cracks in the wheel paths.
Compared with assessment methods adopted elsewhere, both these conditions
are easily measured by the use of a straight edge and visual inspection.
For rigid pavements in the United Kingdom the Committee on Highway
Maintenance 2 has recommended that concrete pavements should be reconstructed
when the following defects are seen.
(I) The total length of all transverse cracking in reinforced slabs {from hair
to wide cracks) exceeds 75 m {250 ft) per 30 m {1 00 ft) of traffic lane. Any trans-
verse cracking in unreinforced slabs, however fine, is an indication of failure,
probably needing reconstruction.
(2) The average difference in level over the length of transverse joints exceeds
6 mm (! in.) on 50 per cent of the joints per 75 m {250ft) length of carriageway.
{3) Surface irregularity indicated by the bump integrator (r values) reaches
the following values in the near-side traffic lanes:· trunk and important principal
roads, 180 to 200 in./mile; other principal roads and important non principal roads,
200 to 240 in./mile. The first figure for each category indicates the normal
maximum acceptable r value and the second figure the permissible maximum.
An alternative concept for determining the point of failure of a pavement has
been developed in the United States. This is the present serviceability index (PSI),
which was first proposed by Carey and Irick. 3 The index is formulated by rating a
series of pavements by a group of individuals who drive over selected pavements
and rate the pavements on a scale of 0 to 5 and state whether the road is acceptable
for the intended traffic. At the same time drivers are asked to state their opinions
on the objective features of the pavement that influenced their rating. A rating of
5 indicates a perfect ride, 4 to 5 is described as very good, 4 to 3 described as good,
3 to 2 described as fair, 2 to 1 described as poor and 1 to 0 as very poor.
This concept was used during the American Association of State Highway
Officials Road Test {AASHO) to assess and compare the performance of experi-
mental pavements incorporated in the test track. 4 The average ratings obtained were
correlated with measurements of roughness, patching and cracking to give a measure
of driver satisfaction with a pavement to give equation 3.1 for flexible pavements
and equation 3.2 for rigid pavements.

PSI= 5.03- 1.91log {1 + SV)- 1.28RD2 - O.Oh/(C + P) {3.1)

PSI= 5.41 - 1.80 log {1 + SV)- 0.09y(C + P) (3.2)