Flexible Pavement Design

Calibrated Mechanistic Design

Procedure
 NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway
Research Program) 1-26
 More specific name for mechanistic-
empirical procedure
 Contains mechanistic distress models
requiring careful calibration and
verification
 Basis of AASHTO 2002 Design Guide
General Methodology
General Methodology
 Assumes materials to be used are known
 Only pavement configuration is subjected to
design iterations
 If changing pavement configuration doesn’t
satisfy design requirements, it may be
necessary to change types and properties of
materials used
Climate Models

 Temperature and Moisture are significant

inputs
 Modulus of HMA depends on pavement
temperature
 Moduli of base, subbase and subgrade vary
with moisture content
Heat Transfer Model

 Evaluates frost action and temperature in multilayered

systems
 Applies finite difference method
 Convection and radiation play a dominant role in
transferring heat between the air and the pavement.
 Conduction plays a separate role in transferring heat within
the pavement system
 Inputs: climatic data and thermal properties of paving
materials and soils
 Climatic: max and min daily air temps, percent sunshine,
wind speed
 Thermal: thermal conductivity, heat capacity, latent heat of
fusion
Moisture Equilibrium Model

 Assumes subgrade cannot receive moisture

infiltration through pavement
 Rainwater will drain out quickly through drainage
layer
 Only water in subgrade is capillary water
 Relates suction to pore water pressure

u = S + p
u is pore pressure when soil is loaded
S is soil suction (a negative pressure)
p is applied pressure or overburden (always positive)
 is compressibility factor (varies between 0 for unsaturdated, cohesionless
soils and 1 for saturated soils)
 is related to plasticity index:  = 0.03 x PI
Infiltration and Drainage Model

 Evaluates effects of rainfall on degree of saturation

and resilient moduli of base course and subgrade
 Degree of saturation is predicted daily by
considering
 the probability distribution of the amount of rainfall
 probabilities of wet and dry days
 Infiltration of water into the pavement through cracks and
joints
 Drainage of base course
 Wet and dry probabilities of pavement sublayers
Structural Models

 Report 1-26 recommended use of elastic

layer programs and ILLI-PAVE finite
element program for development of
(2002) AASHTO Design Guide
 Suggested use of modulus-depth
relationship obtained from ILLI-PAVE to
establish various moduli for ELP
(capitalizing on stress-sensitive feature of
ILLI-PAVE and the multiple wheel
capability of ELP)
Finite Element Models

 ILLI-PAVE and MICH-PAVE

 Questions to be resolved before these can be
used with ELP
 Most serious is that linear elastic solutions from
these models differ significantly from those
obtained by ELP
 Basic requirement for a finite element program in
pavement design is capability to check with ELP
solutions when the elements in the same layer are
assigned the same modulus
 ILLI-PAVE and MICH-PAVE fail to meet these criteria
Finite Element Models (cont.)

• Another limitation is representation of wheel loading by

a single circular area
 Unsafe for thin asphalt pavements: larger contact radius
of single, tensile strain at bottom of asphalt layer is
smaller under a single wheel than under duals
Elastic Layer Programs

Many available
3 used to compare results with KENLAYER
ELSYM5
VESYS

DAMA
KENLAYER

 Believed to be most comprehensive structural

model
 Considers variety of cases not available
elsewhere
 Can be applied to layer systems consisting of
linear elastic, nonlinear elastic, and
viscoelastic material under single- and
multiple-wheel loads
KENLAYER (cont.)

 Major deficiency of program

 Is nonlinear analysis where a stress point must be
specified for each nonlinear layer to compute its
modulus based on the state of stresses
 Assumption of uniform modulus throughout each nonlinear
layer is not theoretically correct but effects on critical
pavement responses are believed to be small
 Most critical responses always occur near loads and layer
moduli near loads have most effect, a stress point directly
under the center of a single wheel or between the centers
of dual wheels can be reasonably selected.
Distress Models

 Sometimes called transfer functions that relate

structural responses to various types of distress
 Weak link in mechanistic-empirical methods –
extensive field calibration and verification are needed
to establish reliable distress predictions
 Usable models for HMA fatigue and subgrade rutting
are available
 Models for rutting of HMA and granular materials are
marginal (require further development)
 Thermal cracking models are available
 SHRP introduced new models (1993-95)
 NCHRP 9-19 is revising these models (2002)
Distress Models (cont.)

 1-26 recommended using Shahin-McCullough

thermal cracking model
 Checking procedure to assess thermal cracking
potential after thickness design is completed
 If unsatisfactory a softer asphalt cement should be used
 HMA rutting is major cause of permanent deformation
on heavily traveled pavements (with thicker HMA) so
the design procedure may be simplified by checking
the rutting potential after the thickness design is
completed
 If unsatisfactory, the selection of different mixture design
procedures and practices should be made until rut depth
is reduce to acceptable limit
Fatigue Cracking Models

 Miner’s cumulative damage concept

 Widely used to predict fatigue cracking
 Generally agreed that allowable number of load repetitions
is related to the tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt
layer
 Amount of damage expressed as damage ratio (between
predicted and allowable number of load repetitions) and
damage occurs when sum of damage ratios = 1
 AI & Shell design methods -- allowable load repetitions
related to tensile strain and modulus
Nf = f1(et)-f2(E1)-f3
 Modulus effect is small (f3 is smaller than f2)
 Several models that include only strain : Nf = f1(et)-f2
Rutting Models

 Rutting is caused by accumulation of permanent

deformation over all layers
 2 procedures used to limit rutting
 One limits vertical compressive strain on top of
subgrade
 AI and Shell design
 Other limits total accumulated permanent deformation
on pavement surface (based on permanent
deformation properties of each individual layer)
 Subgrade strain method assumes that if subgrade
compressive strain is controlled, reasonable surface
rut depths will not be exceeded
Rutting Models (cont.)

 More reasonable to determine permanent deformation in each

layer and sum up the results (direct method, Section 7.4.1)
 Many methods available to determine rut depth
 VESYS

 VESYS-V (new option similar to direct method was added)

 Ohio State model (assumes linear relationship between strain

and number of load repetitions when plotted in log scales

 Considers rutting rate rather than total rutting
Thermal Cracking Models

 2 forms of thermal cracking in asphalt

pavements
 Low-temperature
 Occurs when thermal tensile stress in HMA
exceeds its tensile strength
 Thermal fatigue
 Crack after large number of cycles (fatigue
consumed by daily temperature cycles exceeds
HMA fatigue resistance)
Thermal Cracking Models (cont.)

 Several mechanistic thermal cracking models available

 Finn et al.

 Ruth et al.

 Lytton et al.

 Shahin and McCullough

 Lytton and Shahin-McCullough most comprehensive

 Examine both low-temperature and thermal fatigue cracking

 Recommended by 1-26 for further studies

 Use same basic structure to examine accumulation of

damage but with very different approaches
 Lytton – theoretical (based on viscoelastic fracture mechanics)
 Shahin-McCullough (more phenomenal and much easier to
understand) See Figure 11.7 in text