Miami M.hilal

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/332448164
PREDICTION OF PERMANENT DEFORMATION MODELS FOR ASPHALT

PAVEMENTS IN HOT CLIMATES
Thesis · December 2011

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28480.58885
CITATIONS READS
8 396
3 authors, including:
Miami Hilal
Uneversity of Technology-Iraq
24 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Asphalt mixtures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Miami Hilal on 16 April 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
University of Baghdad
College of Engineering
Civil Engineering Department
PREDICTION OF PERMANENT DEFORMATION

MODELS FOR ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
IN HOT CLIMATES
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR
OF PHILOSOPHY IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
BY
MIAMI M. HILAL
(B.Sc.2000), (M.Sc.2005)
SUPERVISED BY
PROF. HAMED M. H. PROF. DR. RAFA H.

AL-HAMDOU AL-SUHAILI
Professor Emeritus Professor
Muharram 1433 December 2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researcher wishes to express her deep gratitude to the supervisors

Professor Emeritus Hamed M. H. Al-Hamdou and Prof. Dr. Rafa H. Al-Suhaili for
their continuous assistant and guidance during the research period.
Thanks are presented to Dr. Amjad Al-Bayati, Dr. Alaa H. Abed, Eng.
Makki H. Majeed and Dr. Fai’q M. Sarhan for their help.
The researcher also wishes to present her appreciation and gratefulness to

Mr. Mohammed H. Sarhan, Eng. Ziad H. Abdulla, Eng. Mahmood M. Hilal, Dr.
Mustafa M. Hilal and Eng. Wail M. Hilal.
Thanks are presented to my colleagues Eng. Hayder H. and Eng. Mariam S.

Makki.
Finally, I am so grateful for my parents, brothers and sisters for their

patience and continuous supports throughout the various stages of the production of
this dissertation.
Miami M. Hilal
2011
I
PREDICTION OF PERMANENT DEFORMATION MODELS FOR
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS IN HOT CLIMATES
ABSTRACT
Permanent deformation of asphalt pavements has a major impact on

pavement performance. Rutting reduces the useful service life of the pavement and
creates serious hazards for highway users. Although the problem exists in both cold
and hot climates, it is more common and serious in hot climates.
Rutting is the major distress in flexible pavements in Iraq as a result of

increased axle loads, and high local summer temperature. The accumulation of
plastic deformations in asphalt layers is now recognized to be one of the major
components of rutting in flexible pavements.
A study is needed to explore the trends of temperature variation in flexible

pavements in Iraqi environment and their implications on structural design and
material selection.
Available local materials were used including asphalt binder, aggregates, and
mineral filler. These materials are particularly important contributors to permanent
deformation resistance. The asphalt binders (40-50), (60-70) were obtained from
Al-Daurah refinery whereas the aggregate from Al-Nibaie quarry.
The Superpave mix design system was adopted in volumetric proportioning

of materials and laboratory compaction of trial mixes using the Superpave Gyratory
Compactor. The Superpave Gyratory Compactor was used in the preparation of 144
asphalt concrete cylindrical specimens of (10 cm diameter × 17.2 cm height) and
18 specimens of (15 cm diameter × 11.5 cm height). The 144 asphalt concrete
specimens are used to predict the permanent deformation models for wearing,
II
leveling and base courses, whereas the 18 asphalt concrete specimens are used for
volumetric design of the three mixtures according to Superpave criteria.
Depending on the visco-elasto-plastic behavior of asphalt concrete mixtures,

the uniaxial repeated cyclic load test was adopted for characterizing deformation-
time relationship at various temperatures. The Pneumatic Repeated Load Test
Device was used to test the specimens at a rate of 0.1 sec. loading and 0.9 sec. rest
period. The LVDT (Linear Variable Differential Transformer Displacement
Transducer) was used to measure the longitudinal displacements of the specimens
during the test.
Increasing the temperature from 55 0C to 65 0C has increased the permanent

deformation by 11.520% for wearing course, 10.750% for leveling course and
9.815% for base course.
The plastic vertical strain models have been formulated for the three asphalt
pavement layers as a function of temperature, number of load repetition and
resilient strain. The data of laboratory work was analyzed by using two approaches:
Regression approach (SPSS version 19 software) and Artificial Neural Network
approach (ANN) (NEUFRAME version 4 software). The resilient strain models for
the three mixtures were also developed by using regression approach as a function
of temperature, asphalt content, viscosity and stress level. KENPAVE 2004
software was used to test the applicability of the three models. The developed
models can be used to select proper asphalt mixture ingredients in order to predict
pavement rutting values under expected traffic loads and environmental
temperature.
III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE Page No.

ACKNOWLDGEMENTS I
ABSTRACT II
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV
LIST OF TABLES X
LIST OF FIGURES XVIII
NOMENCLATURE XXIII
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Objective. 2
1.2 Dissertation Structure. 2
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Rutting in Flexible Pavements 5
2.3 Rutting Mechanism 6
2.4 Causes of Rutting in Flexible Pavements 8
2.4.1 Rutting Caused by Weak Asphalt Mixture 8
2.4.2 Rutting Caused by Weak Subgrade 10
2.4.3 Rutting Caused by Pavement Wear 11
2.5 Factors Affecting Rutting 11
2.5.1 External Factors 12
2.5.1.1 Traffic Characteristics 13
2.5.1.2 Environmental Conditions 14
2.5.2 Internal Factors 16
2.5.2.1 Asphalt Cement 16
2.5.2.2 Aggregates 20
2.5.2.3 Asphalt Mix Design 21
IV
TITLE Page No.
a. Effect of Mix Properties 22
b. Effect of Compaction 24
2.5.3 Thickness of Asphalt Layer 25
2.6 Material Testing 26
2.7 Analytical Models 27
2.7.1 Mechanistic Empirical Approach 27
2.7.2 Regression Model Approach 29
2.7.3 Artificial Neural Network Approach 30
2.8 Types of Rutting Prediction Strain Models 33
2.8.1 Layered Permanent Strain Approach 33
2.8.2 Plastic-Elastic Vertical Strain Ratio Approach 33
2.8.3 Permanent Strain Rate Approach 34
2.9 Resilient Strain Models 51
CHAPTER THREE: EXPERIMENTAL WORK
3.1 Introduction 52
3.2 Materials 52
3.2.1 Asphalt Binder 52
3.2.2 Aggregates 53
3.2.3 Mineral Filler 56
3.3 Mixture Design 56
3.4 Density and Void Analysis 61
3.5 Selection of Optimum Asphalt Binder Content 62
3.6 Specimens Testing 69
3.7 Analysis of Test Results 71
3.7.1 Effect of Temperature 72
3.7.2 Effect of Stress Level 75
V
TITLE Page No.
3.7.3 Effect of Asphalt Binder Content 77
3.7.4 Effect of Performance Grade 79
3.8 Influence of Temperature, Stress Level, Performance Grade
81
and Asphalt Content on Permanent Micro-Strain
CHAPTER FOUR: STATISTICAL AND ANN MODELS
FOR PRDICTION OF PERMANENT DEFORMATION
4.1 Introduction 86
4.2 Regression Analysis Approach 86
4.2.1 Dependent and Independent Variables of the Developed
87
Models
4.2.2 Testing Normality 87
4.2.3 Multicollinearty 88
4.2.4 Number of Samples 91
4.2.5 Regression Modeling 95
4.2.6 Models Limitations 95
4.2.7 Goodness of Fit 97
4.2.8 Developed Models Validation 100
4.2.9 Distribution of Error 102
4.2.10 Distribution of Mean Error 103
4.2.11 Discussion of Regression Results Analysis 106
4.3 Artificial Neural Network Approach 109
4.3.1 Conceptual Analysis 109
4.3.2 Neural Network Design 109
4.3.3 Neural Network Implementation 110
4.3.4 Model Inputs and Outputs 111
4.3.5 Model No.1: Prediction of Wearing Course Model 111
VI
TITLE Page No.
4.3.5.1 Pre-Processing and Data Division 111
4.3.5.2 Data Scaling 114
4.3.5.3 Model Architecture, Optimization and Stopping
115
Criteria.
4.3.5.4 Sensitivity Analysis of the ANN Model Input 124
4.3.5.5 ANN Model Equation 127
4.3.5.6 Validity of the Wearing Course ANN Model 130
4.3.6 Model No.2: Prediction of Leveling Course Model 132
4.3.6.1 Model Inputs and Outputs 132
135
Criteria.
4.3.6.5 Sensitivity Analysis of the ANN Model Inputs 144
4.3.6.6 ANN Model Equation 147
4.3.6.7 Validity of the Leveling Course ANN Model 149
4.3.7 Model No.3: Prediction of Base Course Model 151
4.3.7.1 Model Inputs and Outputs 151
154
Criteria
4.3.7.5 Sensitivity Analysis of the ANN Model Inputs 163
4.3.7.6 ANN’s Model Equation 165
4.3.7.7 Validity of the Base Course ANN Model 168
4.4 Comparison Between Regression and Artificial Neural 170
VII
TITLE Page No.
Network Approaches
4.5 Development of Resilient Strain Models 173
4.5.1 Testing of Normality 173
4.5.2 Multicollinearty 173
4.5.3 Models Limitations 175
4.5.4 Number of Samples 176
4.5.5 Goodness of Fit 179
4.5.6 Developed Models Validation 182
4.5.7 Distribution of Mean Error 184
4.6 Simplification of Plastic-Elastic Strain Models 187
4.6.1 Wearing Course Model 187
4.6.2 Leveling Course Model 188
4.6.3 Base Course Model 188
CHAPTER FIVE: APPLICATION OF KENPAVE
PROGRAM ON THE DEVELOPED MODELS
5.1 Introduction 190
5.2 Mechanistic-Empirical Approach for Design 190
5.3 Input Data 191
5.3.1 Traffic Loading Data 191
5.3.2 Temperature 194
5.3.3 Pavement Structure and Material Properties 195
5.3.3.1 Asphalt Concrete Layer Properties 196
5.3.3.2 Sub-Base Layer Properties 197
5.3.3.3 Subgrade Layer Properties 198
5.4 Application and Analysis of KENPAVE 2004 Program 198
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND
VIII
TITLE Page No.
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions 209
6.2 Recommendations for Future Work 210
REFRENCES 211
APPENDIX
IX
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Table Title Page No.

2-1 Factors Affecting Rutting of HMA Mixes 12
2-2 HMA Permanent Deformation Models 37
3-1 Physical Properties of Asphalt Binder 52
3-2 Selected Gradation for Asphalt Concrete Mixtures 55
3-3 Physical Properties of Coarse and Fine Aggregate 55
3-4 Physical Properties of Mineral Filler 56
3-5 Mixing and Compaction Temperatures for Asphalt 56
Binder Grades
3-6 Number of Gyrations for N initial , N design and N max 60
3-7 Required Densities for N initial , N design and N max 61
3-8 Minimum VMA Requirements and VFA Range 62
Requirements
3-9 Properties of Wearing Mixture Compaction for 63
Asphalt Binder Content
3-10 Summary of Volumetric Wearing Mixture 63
Properties for Asphalt Binder
3-11 Properties of Leveling Mixture Compaction for 64
3-12 Summary of Volumetric Leveling Mixture 66
Properties for Asphalt Binder
3-13 Properties of Base Mixture Compaction for Asphalt 66
Binder Content
3-14 Summary of Volumetric Base Mixture Properties 66
for Asphalt Binder
X
3-15 Mean Value of Permanent Strain × 10-6 in Each 72
Asphalt Concrete Mixture
3-16 Percentage Factors of Temperature Increase in the 73
Three Mixtures
3-17 Mean Values of Permanent Strain × 10-6 in Each 75
3-18 Percentage Factors of Permanent Strain in Three 75
Mixtures
3-19 Mean Value of Permanent Strain × 10-6 in Each 77
3-20 Percentage Factors of Permanent Strain in the Three 77
Mixtures
3-21 Mean Values of Permanent Strain × 10-6 in Each 79
3-22 Percentage Factors of Permanent Strain Increase in 79
the Three Mixtures
3-23 Influence of Temperature, Stress Level, 81
Performance Grade and Asphalt Content on Plastic
Strain for Different Mixtures Within the Limitations
of Data Variables
4-1 D-Value and K-S Test Results 88
4-2 Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Wearing 89
Course Model
4-3 Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Leveling 90
Course Model
4-4 Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Base Course 90
XI
Model
4-5 Descriptive Statistics for Wearing Course No. of 91
Samples
4-6 T-Test Results for Wearing Course No. of Samples 91
4-7 F-Test Results for Wearing Course No. of Samples 92
4-8 Descriptive Statistics for Leveling Course No. of 93
Samples
4-9 T-Test Results for Leveling Course No. of Samples 93
4-10 F-Test Results for Leveling Course No. of Samples 93
4-11 Descriptive Statistics for Base Course No. of 94
Samples
4-12 T-Test Results for Base Course No. of Samples 94
4-13 F-Test Results for Base Course No. of Samples 94
4-14 Data Limitation Used in Wearing Model 96
4-15 Data Limitation Used in Leveling Model 96
4-16 Data Limitation Used in Base Model 97
4-17 Results of ANOVA for Wearing Course Model 98
4-18 Results of ANOVA for Leveling Course Model 98
4-19 Results of ANOVA for Base Course Model 98
4-20 Regression Developed Model for Wearing Course 99
4-21 Regression Developed Model for Leveling Course 99
4-22 Regression Developed Model for Base Course 100
4-23 D-Value and K-S Results for Error 102
4-24 Coefficients of Wearing Course Model 106
4-25 Coefficients of Leveling Course Model 107
4-26 Coefficients of Base Course Model 108
XII
4-27 Summary Results of Predicted Models 108
4-28 Effect of Data Division on Performance of Wearing 112
Course Model
4-29 Effect of Data Distribution on ANN’s Performance 114
Model
4-30 Effect of Number of Nodes on Wearing Course 116
ANN Performance Model
4-31 Effect of Learning Rate on ANN’s Performance 118
Model
4-32 Effect of Momentum Rate on ANN’s Performance 120
Model
4-33 Effect of Transfer Function Type on ANN 122
Performance Model
4-34 Input and Output Statistics for the ANN’s Wearing 123
Course
4-35 t-test for ANN’s Input and Output Variables for 124
Wearing Model
4-36 Connection Weights Between Hidden Node and 125
Input and Output Layer
4-37 Sensitivity Analysis Results of ANN Model Input 126
Variables
4-38 Weight and Threshold Levels for the ANN 128
Optimum Model
4-39 Results of the Comparative Study 131
4-40 Error Categorization (%) 131
4-41 Effect of Data Division on Performance of Leveling 133
XIII
Course ANN Model
Model
4-43 Effect of Number of Nodes on Leveling Course 136
ANN Performance Model
Model
Model
Performance Model
4-47 Input and Output Statistics for the ANN’s Leveling 143
Course Model
Leveling Model
Variables
4-51 Weights and Threshold Levels for the ANN 147
Optimal Model
4-53 Effect of Data Division on Performance of Base 152
Course ANN Model
Model
XIV
4-55 Effect of Number of Nodes on Base Course ANN 155
Performance Model
Model
Model
Performance Model
4-59 Input and Output Statistics for the ANN’s Base 162
Course Model
Base Model
Variables
4-63 Weights and Threshold Levels for the ANN 166
Optimal Model
4-65 Comparative Between Regression and ANN 172
Approaches
4-66 D-Value and K-S Test Results 173
4-67 Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Wearing 174
Course Model
4-68 Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Leveling 174
Course Model
XV
4-69 Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Base Course 174
Model
4-70 Data Limitations Used in Wearing Model 175
4-71 Data Limitations Used in Leveling Model 175
4-72 Data Limitations Used in Base Model 176
4-73 Descriptive Statistics for Wearing Course No. of 176
Samples
4-74 T-Test Results for Wearing Course No. of Samples 177
4-75 F-Test Results for Wearing Course No. of Samples 177
4-76 Descriptive Statistics for Leveling Course No. of 177
Samples
4-77 T-Test Results for Leveling Course No. of Samples 178
4-78 F-Test Results for Leveling Course No. of Samples 178
4-79 Descriptive Statistics for Base Course No. of 178
Samples
4-80 T-Test Results for Base Course No. of Samples 179
4-81 F-Test Results for Base Course No. of Samples 179
4-82 Results of ANOVA for Wearing Course Model 180
4-83 Results of ANOVA for Leveling Course Model 180
4-84 Results of ANOVA for Base Course Model 180
4-85 Regression Developed Model for Wearing Course 181
4-86 Regression Developed Model for Leveling Course 181
4-87 Regression Developed Model for Base Course 182
5-1 Worksheet for Estimating the 18-Kip Equivalent 193
Single-Axle Load Application (ESAL) as an
Example
XVI
5-2 Mid-Depth Layer Temperature 195
5-3 Shell Nomograph Input Data and Stiffness Modulus 197
for Asphalt Concrete Mixtures
5-4 Poisson Ratio for Different Paving Materials 197
5-5 Equivalent Thicknesses 200
5-6 Physical Properties and Thicknesses for the 201
Pavement Layers
5-7 Maximum Vertical Stress Obtained from 207
KENPAVE Software
5-8 Plastic and Resilient Strain Models 207
5-9 Input Parameters and Rut Depth for Each Asphalt 208
Concrete Layer
5-10 Rut Depth Criteria According to AASHTO Guide 208
(1993)
XVII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Figure Title Page No.

1-1 Types of Rutting in Flexible Pavements 2
2-1 Illustration of Rutting Mechanism 7
2-2 Typical Repeated Load Permanent Deformation 8
Behaviors of Pavement Materials
2-3 Rutting from Weak Mixture 9
2-4 Rating of Observed Deterioration, European 10
Commission
2-5 Rutting from Weak Subgrade 10
2-6 Rutting Caused by Studded Tire Wear 11
2-7 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test Results at Various 16
Temperatures
2-8 Temperature Shift Behavior of Asphalt Binder 17
2-9 Microscopic View of Liquid Flow Properties 18
2-10 A Single-Layer Neural Net 31
2-11 Multiple Layers of Neurons 32
3-1 Asphalt Mixture Gradation with Iraqi 53
Specification Limits
3-2 Photograph of Rotational Viscometer Device 57
3-3 Viscosity-Temperature Chart for Binder Types 57
3-4 Superpave Gyratory Compactor Device 58
3-5 Sample Size (15 cm diameter × 11.5 cm height) 60
for Estimating Optimum Asphalt Content
3-6 Volumetric Mixture Properties at N Design for 65
Wearing Mixture
3-7 Volumetric Mixture Properties at N Design for 67
XVIII
Leveling Mixture
3-8 Volumetric Mixture Properties at N Design for Base 68
Mixture
3-9 Pneumatic Repeated Load System Device 70
3-10 Wearing, Leveling and Base Specimens After 71
Testing
3-11 The Plastic Strain Versus the Number of Load 72
Repetition
3-12 Effect of Temperature on Permanent Strain in 74
Each Asphalt Concrete Mixture
3-13 Effect of Stress Level on Permanent Strain in Each 76
3-14 Effect of Asphalt Binder Content on Permanent 78
Strain in Each Asphalt Concrete Mixture
3-15 Effect of Penetration Grade on Permanent Strain 80
3-16 Influence of Temperature on Permanent Strain 82
3-17 Influence of Stress Level on Permanent Strain 83
3-18 Influence of Performance Grade on Permanent 84
Strain
3-19 Influence of Asphalt Binder Content on Permanent 85
Strain
4-1 Actual Versus Estimated Log ε p /ε r for Wearing 101
Course
4-2 Actual Versus Estimated Log ε p /ε r for Leveling 101
Course
4-3 Actual Versus Estimated Log ε p /ε r for Base 102
XIX
Course
4-4 Histogram Residual for Wearing Course Model 103
4-5 Scatter Plot for Wearing Course Model 104
4-6 Histogram Residual for Leveling Course Model 104
4-7 Scatter Plot for Leveling Course Model 105
4-8 Histogram Residual for Base Course Model 105
4-9 Scatter Plot for Base Course Model 106
4-10 Components of NEUFRAME4 Program 110
4-11 Effect of Data Division on the Performance of the 113
Wearing Course Model
4-12 Performance of the Wearing Course ANN Model 117
with Different Hidden Nodes
4-13 Effect of Various Learning Rate on the Wearing 119
Course ANN Model (M r = 0.8)
4-14 Effect of Various Momentum Rate on the Wearing 121
Course Model (L r = 0.2)
4-15 Relative Importance of the Input Variables for 127
ANN Model
4-16 ANN’s Optimal Model Structure 127
4-17 Comparison of Estimated and Actual Wearing 132
Course Validation Data
Leveling Course ANN Model
4-19 Performance of the Leveling Course ANN Model 137
with Different Hidden Nodes
4-20 Effect of Various Learning Rate on the Leveling 139
XX
Course ANN Model (M r = 0.8)
4-21 Effect of Various Momentum Rate on the Leveling 141
Course ANN Model (L r = 0.2)
Leveling Course ANN Model
4-24 Comparison of Estimated and Actual Leveling 151
Course Validation Data
Base Course ANN Model
4-26 Performance of the Base Course ANN Model with 156
Different Hidden Nodes
4-27 Effect of Various Learning Rate on the Base ANN 158
Model (M r = 0.8)
4-28 Effect of Various Momentum Rate on the Base 160
Course ANN Model (L r = 0.2)
Base Course ANN Model
4-31 Comparison of Estimated and Actual Base Course 169
Validation Data
4-32 Actual Versus Estimated Log ε r for Wearing 183
Course
4-33 Actual Versus Estimated Log ε r for Leveling 183
Course
4-34 Actual Versus Estimated Log ε r for Base Course 184
XXI
4-35 Histogram Residual for Wearing Course Model 184
4-36 Scatter Plot for Wearing Course Model 185
4-37 Histogram Residual for Leveling Course Model 185
4-38 Scatter Plot for Leveling Course Model 186
4-39 Histogram Residual for Base Course Model 186
4-40 Scatter Plot for Base Course Model 187
5-1 Structural Components and Thickness for Flexible 196
Pavement
5-2 Geometry of the Transformed Pavement Section 201
5-3 Distribution of Points at the Surface of Asphalt 202
Pavement Layer
5-4 Input and Output Results of KENPAVE 2004 203
Software
XXII
NOMENCLATURE
Term Description
A Average Number of Axles Per Truck
AA Average Accuracy Percentage
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials
ANN Artificial Neural Network
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
Av Air Void of Asphalt Mixture, %
b Width of Pavement Section, m
BP Back-Propagation
CBR California Bearing Ratio
D The Directional Distribution Factor
E Modulus of Elasticity, psi.
ESAL 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Load
f Transformation Factor
F(y) Normal Cumulative Probabilities
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
Fi The Equivalent Axle Load Factor (EALF) for the ith
Load Group
Fn (y) Sample Cumulative Distribution Function
G The Growth Factor
G mb Bulk specific gravity
XXIII
Term Description
GRNN Generalized Regression Neural Network
h The Height of the Specimen, mm
H Depth to Surface, in
ℎ𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Thickness of the Asphalt Layer, in
HMA Hot Mix Asphalt
I Moment of Inertia, m4
k Number of Independent Variables
KENPAVE Kentucky Pavement Analysis and Design Software
kip Kilo Pound
K-S Kolmogorov-Smirnov
L The Lane Distribution Factor
Lat Latitude of the Section, Degrees
Lr Learning Rate
LTPP Long Term Pavement Performance
LVDT Linear Variable Differential Transformer
Displacement Transducer
MAAT Mean Annual Air Temperature, oC
MAPE Mean Absolute Percentage Error
M-E-based method Mechanistic-Empirical based method
MEPDG Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
MPE Mean Percentage Error
Mr Momentum Rate
Mr Resilient Modulus, psi
MSR Regression Mean Square
N Number of Load Repetition
XXIV
Term Description
n Number of Samples
n - (k + 1) Degree of Freedom (D f )
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
N design Design Number of Gyrations
ni Total Number of Load Repetitions to be Used in
Design for the ith Load Group
(𝑛𝑛0 )𝑖𝑖 Initial Number of Repetition Per Day for the ith Load
Group
N initial Initial Number of Gyrations
N max. Maximum Number of Gyrations
𝑝𝑝𝑑𝑑 Axial Permanent Deformation

pi The Percentage of Total Repetitions for the ith Load
Group
PNN Probabilistic Neural Networks
Ps Asphalt Content
P seff. Effective Asphalt Content, %
psi Pound per Square Inch
R Correlation Coefficient
r The Yearly Rate of Traffic Growth
R2 Coefficient of Determination
RBF Radial Basis Function
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 Total Rut Depth, mm
RI Relative Importance
RMSE Root Mean Squared Error
S.D Standard Deviation
XXV
Term Description
SD Standard Deviation of the High 7 Day Mean Air
Temperature, oC
SER Standard Error
SGC Superpave Gyratory Compactor
SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 Predicted Strain Ratio for Base Course in Logarithmic
Scale
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 Predicted Strain Ratio for Leveling Course in
Logarithmic Scale
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 Predicted Strain Ratio for Wearing Course in
Logarithmic Scale
SSE Sum Squares of Error
T Test Temperature oC or Percentage of Trucks in the
ADT, %
T air High Air Temperature, oC
Tf The Truck Factor
TMD, G mm Theoretical Maximum Density, gm/cm3
T pav High Asphalt Concrete Pavement Temperature Below
Surface, oC
TRB Transportation Research Board
ui The Error
ν Poisson Ratio
VFA Voids Filled with Asphalt, %
VMA Voids in Mineral Aggregate, %
VTM Voids in Total Mix, %
XXVI
Term Description
xi The Independent Variable
Y The Design Period in Year
yi The Dependent Variable
𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 Actual Value of Response Variable For the ith Case
𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖′ Value of the Regression Prediction for the ith Case
Z Standard Normal Distribution Table
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 Axial Permanent Strain
εr Resilient Strain
Ratio of Permanent Plastic Strain at Any (N) Number
ε p /ε r of Load Repetition to Resilient Strain at 200th Load
Repetition
𝛽𝛽0 Constant
𝛽𝛽1 The Slope
𝛽𝛽𝜎𝜎3 Depth Correction Factor
𝜂𝜂 Viscosity at 135 oC, pas.sec
𝜎𝜎 Stress Level, psi
θj Hidden Layer Threshold
XXVII
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The ability to predict the amount and growth of permanent deformation or

rutting in flexible pavements is an important aspect of pavement design.
Permanent deformation is one of the most important types of load-associated

distresses occurring in flexible pavement systems. It is associated with rutting in
the wheel path, which develops gradually as the number of load repetitions
accumulates. In addition, rut depth is the primary factor in road roughness affecting
serviceability. Rutting normally appears as longitudinal depressions in the wheel
paths accompanied by small upheavals to the sides. The width and depth of the
rutting profile is highly dependent upon the pavement structure (layer thickness and
quality), traffic matrix and quantity as well as the environmental temperature at
site.
Hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavements tend to rut when exposed to hot summer
days due to a decrease in asphalt binder stiffness (Hoegh, 2010). Minimizing HMA
pavement rutting is important in preventing accidents caused by hydroplaning.
There are two basic types of rutting: HMA rutting and subbase/subgrade rutting.
Asphalt mixture rutting occurs when lower layers does not rut yet the pavement
surface exhibits wheel path depressions as a result of compaction/mix design
problems. Granular material/subgrade rutting occurs when they exhibit wheel path
depressions due to excessive loading. In this case, the pavement structure settles
causing surface depressions in the wheel path, Figure (1-1) shows the two types of
rutting (Hjort, 2008).
1
Granular layer
Figure (1-1) Types of Rutting in Flexible Pavements
(Hjort, 2008).
1.1 The Objective
The main objective of this research is to develop permanent deformation

models for the three local asphalt pavement layers wearing course, leveling course
and base course. To achieve this objective the following steps should be done:
• Developing the plastic-elastic vertical strain models for the three courses
(wearing, leveling and base) with different variables including environmental
temperature.
• Developing the resilient strain models to be applied in the developed elastic-
plastic vertical strain models.
1.2 Dissertation Structure
The scope of this research work can be achieved by the following chapters:
• Chapter One: consists of introduction, the objective and the scope of the
research work.
• Chapter Two: presents the review of the literature related to the research
subject, rutting mechanism, causes of rutting in flexible pavements, factors
affecting rutting, material testing, analytical models, types of rutting
prediction models and resilient strain models.
2
• Chapter Three: presents the experimental design work that was adopted in
the research work, materials, mixture design, density and voids analysis,
selection of optimum asphalt content, specimens testing and test results
analysis.
• Chapter Four: shows the statistical analysis process used in the prediction
of elastic-plastic vertical strain models for the three layers which consist of
regression and artificial neural network approach and the comparison process
between the two approaches. It also contains the prediction of resilient strain
models for the three asphalt pavement layers and applying the depth
correction factor at the three developed models.
• Chapter Five: consists of application of the developed models in the
KENPAVE program software.
• Chapter Six: presents the conclusions and recommendations for further
research work.
3
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Permanent deformation (rutting) of asphalt pavements has a major impact on
pavement performance. Rutting reduces the useful service life of the pavement. By
affecting vehicle handling characteristics, it creates serious hazards for highway
users. It is one of the major distress mechanisms in flexible pavements. Because of
the increase in tire pressure and axle loads in recent years, rutting has become the
dominant mode of failure in flexible pavements in many countries. Surface
deformation occurs due to weakening of one or more of the pavement layers in
addition to the extensive stresses generated by heavy trucks and high inflated tires.
It is caused by combinations of higher axle loads, warmer temperatures, poor
construction conditions and failure of one or more layers of the structure. Then, it
can result in serious safety problems.
Furthermore, the repeated and transient load applications can result in lateral
distortions (shear flows) and/or plastic deformations in one or more of the
component pavement layers (Morris, 1972). Van De Loo 1974 reported that surface
rutting occurs due to plastic deformation in the paving material, a general
subsidence of subgrade and overlay asphalt layer.
Several research works have been conducted on permanent deformation of asphalt
concrete materials. Most of these research works were conducted on different
materials using various testing procedures and mainly based on uniaxial tests,
(Garba, 2002). Rutting gives problems to users by increasing the consumption of
fuel and the risk of skidding (on water or on ice). It also gives problems to the
owner as ruts encourage water to soak into the pavement instead of draining off the
surface. Water that enters the pavement in this way may be collected in a ‘buried’
4
rut in the subgrade and/or reduce the load carrying capacity of the granular layers
(Dawson and Kolisoja, 2004).
2.2 Rutting in Flexible Pavements

Rutting or permanent deformation is one of the predominant types of
distresses observed in bituminous surfacing (Suparma, 2002). It occurs due to the
viscoelastic nature of bituminous mixtures. It is also caused by two mechanisms
under traffic and plastic flow (Mallick et al, 1995).
Eisemann and Hilmar (1987) studied asphalt pavement deformation
phenomenon by using wheel tracking device and measuring the average rut depth
as well as the volume of displaced materials below the tires and in the upheaval
zones adjacent to them. They concluded that:
1. In the initial stages of trafficking the increase of irreversible deformation
below the tires is distinctly greater than the increase in the upheaval zones.
Therefore, in the initial phase, traffic compaction or densification is the
primary mechanism of rut development.
2. After the initial stage, the volume decrease below the tires is approximately
equal to the volume increase in the adjacent upheaval zones. This indicates
that most of the compaction under traffic is completed and further rutting is
caused essentially by shear deformation, i.e., distortion without volume
change. Thus, shear deformation is considered to be the primary mechanism
of rutting for the greater part of the lifetime of the pavement.
Zhao (2002) defined the cumulative permanent strain curve into three zones:
primary, secondary, and tertiary. In the field, Parker and Brown (1992) suggested
that the top 7 to 10 cm of the pavement system is the portion which is most
vulnerable to rutting. Kamal et. al. (2005) carried out creep tests on the cores
extracted from the field. Mixes prepared using polymer modified bitumen were
5
found to exhibit less accumulated strain at higher temperatures when compared to
the conventional mixes (Hamzah et al, 2009).
2.3 Rutting Mechanism

Rutting is a surface depression in the wheel paths, and some amount of
rutting occurs in nearly all flexible pavements (Von, 2007). The LTPP Distress
Identification Manual (SHRP 1993, FHWA 2003) defines rutting as: “A
longitudinal surface depression in the wheel path. Rutting may have associated
transverse displacement”.
Rutting is caused by inelastic or plastic deformations in any or all of the
pavement layers and subgrade. These plastic deformations can be the result of:
1. densification or one-dimensional compression and consolidation and/or
2. lateral movements or plastic flow of materials (HMA, aggregate base, and
subgrade soils) from wheel loads.
The more severe premature distortion and rutting failures are related to
lateral flow and/or loss of shear strength of the HMA mixture rather than one-
dimensional densification. Rutting is categorized into three types and defined by
the cause and layers in which the rutting occurs (Von, 2007).
Wheel path rutting prevents rapid drainage of water from the pavement
surface and causes hydroplaning. The permanent deformation in asphalt concrete
consists of densification and shear deformation. Shear deformation occurs with no
change in volume, i.e., it is distortional. Asphalt concrete may also dilate or
increase in volume under load. Deformation involving dilatation is also referred to
as shear flow or plastic flow in some literatures. Such deformation can lead to
debonding at the binder aggregate interface and deterioration of the pavement.
Figure (2-1) illustrates the mechanisms of rutting in flexible pavements.
6
Figure (2-1) Illustration of Rutting Mechanism (Garba, 2002).
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) has defined three

distinct stages for the permanent deformation behavior of pavement asphalt
materials under a given set of material, load and environmental conditions. Primary
stage has high initial level of rutting, with a decreasing rate of plastic deformations,
predominantly associated with volumetric change.
Secondary stage has small rate of rutting exhibiting a constant rate of change
of rutting that is also associated with volumetric changes; however, shear
deformations increase at increasing rate. While the tertiary stage has a high level of
rutting predominantly associated with plastic (shear) deformations under no volume
change conditions as shown in Figure (2-2) (AASHTO Design Guide, 2002).
7
Figure (2-2) Typical Repeated Load Permanent Deformation Behaviors of
Pavement Materials (AASHTO Design Guide, 2002)
2.4 Causes of Rutting in Flexible Pavements

Generally there are three causes of rutting in asphalt pavements:
accumulation of permanent deformation in the asphalt surfacing layer, permanent
deformation of subgrade, and wear of pavements caused by studded tires. Bell et al.
1982 suggested that deformation of asphalt pavements is caused by the applied
stress and void content in the mix. In the past subgrade deformation was considered
to be the primary cause of rutting and many pavement design methods applied a
limiting criteria on vertical strain at the subgrade level. However recent research
indicates that most of the rutting occurs in the upper part of the asphalt surfacing
layer. Gervais and Abd El Halim 1990 reported that rutting which occurs only in
the new asphalt layer is neither caused by higher axle loads nor due to higher stress
levels. They conclude that lower vertical compressive stresses and horizontal
higher tensile strains occur under standard wheel load when the new layer is still
relatively soft, thus causing the reported deformation.
2.4.1 Rutting Caused by Weak Asphalt Mixture

Rutting in asphalt layers is type of failure, usually within two inches from the
surface, and it is caused by an asphalt mixture that is too low in shear strength to
8
resist the repeated heavy loads to which it is subjected. The surface material is
laterally displaced along shear planes within the layer, which shows signs of
mixture instability (low shear resistance). Figure (2-3) shows a schematic of
instability rutting which is characterized by longitudinal ruts in the pavement with
humps of material on either side of the rut (Huber 1999). Asphalt pavement rutting
from weak asphalt mixtures is a high temperature phenomenon, i.e., it most often
occurs during the summer when high pavement temperatures are evident.
Figure (2-3) Rutting from Weak Mixture (Asphalt Institute, 1994)
Brown and Cross (1992) concluded that the majority of rutting occurred in
the top 3 to 4 inches (75 to 100 mm) of the asphalt concrete layers. They found that
the rutting in the subgrade was generally very small.
In Europe, a survey was conducted, under the COST 333 program (1999), to
determine the most common type of pavement deterioration. Accordingly,
countries were asked to rate the most common forms of deterioration observed on
their roads using a rising scale of increasing importance from 0 to 5: where 0
indicates that it is not observed, and 5 it is a major determinant of pavement
performance. Figure (2-4) shows the result of the survey. The figure clearly shows
that rutting originated in the bituminous layers is the most common form of
pavement deterioration on European roads.
9
Figure (2-4) Rating of Observed Deterioration, European Commission (1999)
2.4.2 Rutting Caused by Weak Subgrade

This type of rutting occurs when one or more layers of the pavement
structure (usually the subgrade) undergo further densification by reduction of air
voids, or loss of moisture in the case of clay soils. Figure (2-5) illustrates rutting
from weak subgrade. Rutting of the subgrade layers can lead to failure of the upper
asphaltic layers (Dawson, 2004)
Figure (2-5) Rutting from Weak Subgrade (Asphalt Institute, 1994)
The structure is especially susceptible to this type of distress when there is

insufficient compaction during pavement construction. A layer with insufficient
density is prone to further densification under traffic, especially in hot weather (for
asphalt concrete layers) and at intersections where the loads are slow moving or
10
static. Rutting can be caused by too much repeated load applied to subgrade,
subbase or base below the asphalt layer. In many cases, this happens due to
insufficient depth of cover on the subgrade resulting from too thin asphalt section
to reduce the stress from applied loads to tolerable level. Thus, this type of rutting
is considered to be more of a structural problem than a materials problem and it is
often referred to as structural rutting (Huang 2004).
2.4.3 Rutting Caused by Pavement Wear

Wear rutting is defined as the material loss of the asphalt surface layer in the
wheel path. This type of rutting results from excessive traffic volume, using
studded tires, inadequate compaction and low durability of asphalt mix. As well,
environmental conditions, such as temperature and rainfall, may lead to the loss of
asphalt material in the pavement surface layer (Hogewied and Anderson, 1990).
Figure (2-6) shows rutting caused by studded tire wear.
Figure (2-6) Rutting Caused Mainly by Studded Tire Wear (Zelelew, 2008)
2.5 Factors Affecting Rutting
Different factors that influence permanent deformation and the effect of
changing factors are shown in Table (2-1).
Factors affecting rutting of asphalt pavements can be classified into three
groups. The first group is the external factors which contains traffic and
11
environmental conditions. The second group is the internal factors which deal with
the effect of bitumen, aggregate, and mix properties on the rutting behavior of
asphalt pavement. The third group contains the structural conditions which include
the effect of thickness of layer of the pavement system on rutting resistance.
Table (2-1) Factors Affecting Rutting of HMA Mixes (Sousa, 1991).
Effect of Change
Factor Change in Factor Factor on Rutting
Resistance
Surface texture Smooth to rough Increase
Gradation Gap to continuous Increase
Aggregate
Shape Rounded to angular Increase
Size Increase in maximum size Increase
Binder Stiffnessa Increase Increase
Binder content Increase Decrease
Air void contentb Increase Decrease
Mix
VMAc Increase Decrease
Method of compaction ___d ___d
Decrease
Temperature Increase
Decrease
Test or Field State of stress/strain Increase in tire contact pressure
Decrease
Conditions Load repetitions Increase
Decrease if mix is
Water Dry to wet
water sensitive
NOTE:
a
Refers to stiffness at temperature at which rutting propensity is being determined. Modifiers may be
utilized to increase stiffness at critical temperatures, thereby reducing rutting potential.
b
When air void contents are less than about 3 %, the rutting potential of mixes increases.
c
It is argued that very low (i.e., less than 10 %) voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) should be
avoided.
d
The method of compaction, whether laboratory or field, may influence the structure of the system
and therefore the propensity for rutting.
The effects of the foregoing factors on rutting of asphalt pavements are discussed
below.
2.5.1 External Factors
Rutting is mainly caused by traffic loading, but climate can also have a large
influence, especially when the pavement subgrade undergoes seasonal variations in
bearing capacity, or when bituminous layers are subjected to high temperatures
(Brown, Kandhal and Zhang, 2004).
12
2.5.1.1 Traffic Characteristics
Traffic characteristics consist of two factors: wheel load and area of load
influence and duration of loading.
Recent research investigations focus on the effects of traffic wheel load, tire
pressure and the shape of surface rutting of asphalt pavements. Haas and
Papagianakis (1986) reported that an increase in tire load can result in a significant
increase of the compressive strain in the top of the subgrade and the tire pressure
has effect on the vertical compressive strain in the surface layer only. Bonaquist
et al. (1988) showed that the measured values of rutting depend, to a little extent,
upon tire pressure and, to large extent, on tire load. Gervais and Abd El Halim
(1990) stated that switching from bias to radial truck tire by 16 industry has
increased the rate of rutting. In their opinion, the radial tire factor is one of the most
significant causes of rutting. Actual tire inflation pressure in the field is much
higher than that typically used in design procedures. Roberts et al. (1985)
concluded that the average pressure of truck tire is about 95 to 100 psi whereas in
pavement design, a typical value of 75 to 90 psi is used. They suggest the use of
200 psi contact pressure in the design. Phang (1989) recommended the use of radial
ply truck tires with inflation pressure of about 110 psi in pavement design. Drakos
(2003) stated that when the tire is loaded the contact area becomes flat and the
bulging is reversed, causing transverse stresses to pull the pavement towards the
center of the tire. This is commonly referred to as the pneumatic effect. In
calculating pavement stresses resulting from the passage of the traffic, it is usual to
assume that the load carried by the wheel is uniformly distributed over a circular
area and the radius of loading is calculated from the wheel load and the tire
pressure (Huang, 2004).
13
Load repetition is an important traffic factor which influences rutting
resistance of asphalt pavements. Phang (1989) stated that rutting accumulates faster
as the load repetition increases.
Hofstra and Kolomp (1972) studied the effect of load repetition at constant
temperature of 30oC and showed that the deformation per wheel passage is not
constant during the test. In the initial stage of the experiment, the rutting depth
dramatically increases as the load repetition increases. The incremental rut,
however, decreases as the number of wheel passages increases. Garba (2002) stated
that the permanent deformation accumulates with increasing number of load
applications.
Hjort et al (2008) examined the variation in axle loads from different axle
load levels to establish a representative value for axle loads based on weigh-in-
motion, WIM, registrations of regular traffic load’s exposure on pavements. The
results indicated the use of lognormal distribution for description of normal axle
load distribution.
Chatti et al (2005) stated that rutting damage caused by multiple axles
increases with increasing number of axles per axle group. When normalized to the
load each axle carry, the results have shown a relatively constant value suggesting
that rutting damage is proportional to load.
Traffic data is one of the key input elements required for structural
design/analysis of pavement structures. It is required for estimating the loads and
their frequency as applied to a pavement structure throughout its design life.
Agencies typically use three methods to collect traffic data; weigh-in-motion
(WIM), automatic vehicle classification (AVC), and vehicle counts (Thyagarajan,
2009).
2.5.1.2 Environmental Conditions
Temperature, precipitation and freeze-thaw affect the performance of
asphaltic concrete pavements. Exposing the asphalt pavement to high temperatures
14
for long period of time has a tremendous effect on the rutting resistance. The
temperature regime to which HMA pavement layers are subjected has been the
topic of several studies in the past. Internationally, the Strategic Highway Research
Program (SHRP) in the USA introduced temperature models as part of a
standardized HMA design method known as Superpave (Denneman, 2007).
Hofstra and Kolomp (1972) concluded that within the temperature range of
20oC to 60oC, the modulus of asphalt concrete decreases by a factor of 60%, which
led to an increase in the initial deformation by the same order of magnitude, while
rutting increases by a factor of 250 to 350. Using the dynamic creep analysis,
Majidzadeh et al. (1979) indicated that variation in temperature is the factor that
has the greatest effect on dynamic modulus. They showed that an increase in the
temperature from 27oC to 49oC can result in a reduction in moduli value by a factor
of 4% to 5%. Also, Zahw (1990) investigated the effect of temperature on rutting
resistance of different types of hot asphalt concrete mixes using tracking-wheel test
machine, and find that the rutting depth increases with the increase of the testing
temperature of the mixes from 25oC to 60oC by a factor of 1.8% to 2.7%. This
factor depends upon the type of asphalt cement used in the mix.
Figure (2-7) shows the influence of temperature on the resistance against
permanent deformation for a standard continuously graded medium mix widely
used in South Africa. The Hamburg wheel tracking test results in the figure provide
an indication of the extent of behavioral change of HMA material at rising
temperatures.
15
Figure (2-7) Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test Results at Various Temperatures
(Source: Denneman 2007)
2.5.2 Internal Factors
2.5.2.1 Asphalt Cement
Asphalt binders can simply be defined as “dark brown to black cementitious
material in which the predominating constituents are bitumen which occur in nature
or are obtained in petroleum processing” according to American Society of Testing
and Materials. These materials are complex mixtures of organic compounds
(mainly aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons) which are commonly modeled as
colloids, with asphaltenes as the dispersed phase and maltenes as the continuous
phase. It is also described as polycondensed aromatic and heteroaromatic clusters
with methyl and long-chain hydrocarbon groups attached and surrounded by less
polar aromatic and aliphatic components (Togunde, 2008).
Asphalt binder makes up about 5% to 6% of the total weight of asphalt
concrete mixture. However, it is an important element which contributes to the
performance of the asphalt pavement layers.
16
Kok and Kuloglu (2007) stated that adhesion and cohesion are two important
related properties of asphalt binders that can affect asphalt mixture performance.
Bitumen is a material characterized by a time of loading and temperature
dependence of the mechanical response to loading (Burger et al, 2001). However,
the increase in traffic load requires improving the mechanical properties of
conventional asphalt mixtures (Hafeez, 2009).
The behavior of asphalt at high temperature conditions for short time spans is
equivalent to its performance at low temperature conditions for longer time
durations. This concept floated by McGennis et al. (1995). It is called temperature
shift or in other words the superposition theory of asphalt binder, which has been
explained by Asphalt Institute (2003) as in Figure (2-8).
Figure (2-8): Temperature Shift Behavior of Asphalt Binder

(Asphalt Institute, 2003).
The asphalt viscosity directly affects the strength of asphalt concrete in
compression (rutting) for the practical range of temperatures (Hafeez, 2009). The
binder viscosity in the mixture has a significant effect on the resistance to plastic
deformation. Binders with higher viscosity have higher dynamic stability. Bahgat
and Zahw (1993) found that asphaltenes, resins, wax and oil affect the viscosity of
asphalt cements. They concluded that mixes with higher resistance to rutting,
higher Marshall stability, and lower Marshall flow can be achieved by using
17
binders with higher asphaltenes and lower resins contents. Moreover, higher
percentages of wax and oil contents in asphalt cement reduce rutting resistance of
asphalt concrete mixes.
In hot climatic conditions or under slow moving trucks, asphalt behaves like
a viscous liquid and only aggregates are the contributing element of hot mix asphalt
that bear the traffic loads. At micro level, the contiguous layers of molecules seem
sliding pass each other. This phenomenon has been presented by Asphalt Institute
(2003) as shown in Figure (2-9). Whereas in cold climatic conditions or under fast
moving trucks (rapidly applied loads), asphalt behaves like an elastic solid and
deforms when loaded, but returns to its original shape when unloaded. If it is
stressed beyond its strength, it may rupture.
Figure (2-9): Microscopic View of Liquid Flow Properties

(Asphalt Institute, 2003)
High performance pavement requires asphalt cement that is less susceptible
to high temperature rutting or low temperature cracking, and has excellent bonding
to stone aggregates (Ait-kadi et al, 1996).
Tarefder et al. (2003) investigated the most important factors affecting
rutting and performance grade (PG) of bitumen and determined that specimen type,
test temperature and moisture has significant influence on binder performance.
18
The mechanical behavior of bitumen can be described for almost the whole
temperature range of practical interest by the stiffness modulus (Huang, 2004). The
stiffness modulus of bitumen is defined as:
𝜎𝜎
𝑆𝑆𝑏𝑏 = (2.1)
𝜀𝜀 𝑏𝑏
Where:
𝑆𝑆𝑏𝑏 = The stiffness modulus of bitumen, in N/m2.
σ = The applied stress, in N/m2, and
ε b = The strain deformation of bitumen, in %.
Van Der Poel (1954) indicates that the stiffness modulus of bitumen, 𝑆𝑆𝑏𝑏 ,
depends on the frequency or time of loading, temperature, hardness of bitumen, and
its rheological characteristics.
Hafeez et al (2010) observed that asphalt binder type had relatively minor
effects on the permanent deformation behavior of coarser and finer mixtures at low
temperature (25 oC) and stress level (100 kPa).
Radziszewski (2007) stated that resistance to permanent deformations
depends on the type of asphalt mixture and the type of binder used. Asphalt
concrete with rubberised bitumen, asphalt concrete with 7 % polymer modified
binders and Stone Matrix Asphalt and Superpave mixtures with unmodified binders
appeared to be most resistant to permanent deformations after long-term laboratory
ageing.
Anderton (2002) reported the physical properties and aging characteristics of
asphalt-rubber concrete mixes and showed improved resistance to permanent
deformation at high temperatures than unmodified mixes.
The Superpave system has introduced the use of Performance Graded (PG)
asphalt binders. The grade of asphalt binder should correspond to the expected high
and low temperatures of the location of the pavement (Kandhal and Mallick, 1999).
19
2.5.2.2 Aggregates
Mineral aggregates play an important role in the performance of asphalt
mixtures. Aggregates constitute about 85% of total volume of asphalt mixtures
(Khosla et al, 2001). Various factors such as gradation and maximum size of the
aggregate blend, angularity and surface texture of the aggregates influence the
performance of the mixtures.
Various papers have been published in the literature regarding the
performance of natural and crushed aggregates in asphalt mixtures.
Anderson (1987) investigated the use of a prototype test track to evaluate
rutting resistance of two different types of asphalt concrete mixes. It consists of 34
inches long by 12 inches wide and 3 inches high of asphalt layer. The coarse
aggregate in the first mix contains crushed limestone and the second mix contains
uncrushed gravel. Natural sand is used as a fine aggregate in both mixes. Mixtures
containing crushed aggregate seem to have a better resistance to rutting than those
containing uncrushed aggregate. Button et al (1990) suggested that rutting can be
successfully addressed by replacing most or all of natural sands with manufactured
particles, using large top-size crushed aggregates, increasing the minimum
allowable air voids in the laboratory compacted mixtures and limiting filler to
bitumen ratio. Angular aggregate surfaces provide improved particle interlocking
and a presumably superior aggregate skeleton, which induces increased
compressive load-carrying capacity, strength and stiffness of asphalt concrete
pavement (Carlberg et al, 2003 and Asphalt Institute, 1996).
The surface texture of aggregates, used in hot asphaltic concrete mixes, has a
direct impact on their rutting resistance. Bahgat and El-Refaee (1989) concluded
that mixes with rough aggregate surface texture have a higher rutting resistance
than those with smoother ones. Smooth, rounded aggregate particles tend to slide
past each other. If the aggregate provides a high degree of internal friction (Ø), the
shear strength of the asphalt mixture will be increased and, therefore, the resistance
20
to rutting. This is accomplished by selecting an aggregate that is angular, cubical,
has a rough surface texture, and is graded in a manner to develop particle to particle
contact (Mc Gennis et al, 1994).
Aggregate gradation is a significant factor which affects the behavior of
asphalt mixes especially in rutting resistance. The aggregate structure of mixtures
and the maximum size of aggregate are the critical factors that determines the
rutting performance.
The above discussion suggests that asphalt concrete mixes with higher
interlock and better friction between aggregates will provide higher resistance to
rutting. Therefore, an important step in reducing surface rutting is the identification
of factors which contribute to the interlocking and friction mechanisms of the mix.
Vavrik et al (2001) and Kim et al. (2005) indicated that the effect of coarse
aggregate will provide great potential for evaluating the rutting performance of hot-
mix asphalt. A coarse aggregate volume of 45% appears to be a threshold that
determines the performance of Superpave mixtures. Once the coarse aggregate
volume exceeds 45%, the performance of Superpave mixtures starts to decrease
(Kim et al, 2006).
Bennert (2010) stated that rounded aggregate provides minimal shear
interlock between particles and will easily “roll” over one another allowing the
asphalt mixture to simply flow during loading. Increasing the amount of fractured
faces in the coarse aggregate, thereby increasing its angularity, will improve the
stability of the asphalt mixture.
2.5.2.3 Asphalt Mix Design

Properties of asphalt concrete mix are good indicators to reflect the
performance of pavement structure. The properties of the bituminous mixtures have
more influence on the rutting resistance than the properties of the individual
ingredient "aggregate" or "asphalt". Furthermore, the compaction of the mixture
21
has a large effect on rutting behavior of asphalt concrete pavement. Effects of such
mix properties on rutting resistance are discussed below.
a. Effect of Mix Properties

Asphalt cement content, air voids, voids in mineral aggregate and bulk
relative density of the asphalt mix are physical factors which affect rutting
resistance. Volumetric constituents are assumed to be important in rutting
performance of asphalt concrete (Carlberg et al, 2003).
Brown and Pell (1974) concluded that a dense graded asphalt mixture
exhibits less deformation than a gap graded mixture due to less aggregate
interlocking in gap graded mixture. Evidences show that the effects of rutting can
be reduced by using dense aggregate gradations. On proper compaction, mixtures
with dense or continuous aggregate gradations are more closely spaced than open
or gap graded mixtures, therefore have fewer voids. Also at higher temperatures,
the aggregate interlocking becomes more prominent so gap graded mixtures are
more susceptible to rutting at higher temperature which was later on confirmed by
test track results (Huang 1993).
Brown and Snaith (1974) tested 150 mm diameter and 225 mm long cores by
using a repeated loading triaxial device. At low temperatures, 10°C to 30°C, it is
found that asphalt cement content of 4% results in the least permanent deformation.
For the same range of temperatures, a 3% asphalt cement content results in high air
voids percentage, and a 5% asphalt cement content reduces the interlock due to
larger thickness of the asphalt film. At higher temperature, 40°C, the viscosity of
asphalt cement drops and the aggregate interlock becomes more important.
Ahlrich (1996) stated that the percentage of crushed coarse particles had a
significant effect on laboratory permanent deformation properties. As percentage of
crushed particles decreased, the rutting potential of the HMA mixtures increase.
22
Mathews and Monismith (2003) studied the effect of excessive asphalt
cement content, excessive fine grained aggregate and high percentages of natural,
rounded aggregate particles and concluded that this excessiveness can be a
common material-related causes of permanent deformation.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP, 2005) has
reported that mineral filler were originally added to dense-graded asphalt concrete
to fill the voids in the aggregate skeleton and to reduce the voids in the mixture.
The additions of fines to the asphalt binder can have three main effects; extend the
asphalt binder, or stiffness the asphalt binder, or both.
Huang et al (2007) investigated the effect of mineral filler on mix design and
performance characteristics of HMA mixtures by selecting three types of mineral
fillers and four filler contents in order to study the relationship between filler
contents and rut depth. They concluded that filler with rough texture and high
percentage usually increases the stiffness and decreases the rut depth. They further
recommended that filler contents ranges will be required to be investigated in order
to ensure the performance of the mixture (Hafeez, 2009).
An asphalt mixture made of aggregates with relatively poor internal friction
is more susceptible to rutting. The cohesion, c, theoretically represents the shear
strength at zero confining pressure. Cohesion, in asphalt concrete, is a parameter
that indicates how strongly the binder can bind the aggregates together. It is mostly
a function of binder content, binder grade and mix temperature (Zaniewski et al,
2004).
Moghaddam et al (2001) stated that rutting properties of asphalt concrete can
be improved by adding different types of additives such as different types of
polymers and fibers.
Wu and Ye (2007) stated that permanent deformation of asphalt mixtures
with basalt mineral fibers can be reduced at high temperature, the flow number is
increased and the ultimate deformation is decreased. Moreover, the dynamic
23
stability of asphalt mixtures contain mineral fibers is increased and the rutting
depth is reduced. This reveals that the high temperature stability of asphalt mixture
can be improved by adding of basalt mineral fibers.
Ziari and Mahid (2007) studied the effects of temperature and different
percentage of asphalt cement on the resistance to permanent deformation of HMA
mixture, and concluded that significant degree of confidence that the asphalt
mixture will not fail on the roadway due to permanent deformation can be achieved
by simulating the laboratory test findings with field performance of asphalt
mixture.
Kandhal and Mallick (1999) stated that in case of granite and limestone
wearing course mixes, the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer rut depth increased with an
increase in asphalt film thickness. However, an opposite effect was observed in
case of gravel wearing course mixes, and binder course mixes containing granite
and limestone.
b. Effect of Compaction
The method of compaction, either laboratory or field, may influence the
structure of the system and therefore the propensity for rutting (SHRP,1991).
Faheem (2004) stressed on the importance of proper compaction and
concluded that degree of compaction is one of the main quality parameters of the
placed mixture, especially for critical designs (those having a low bitumen content
intended to deliver a high resistance against permanent deformation). The well-
designed, well produced mixture performs better (better durability and mechanical
properties) when it is well-compacted.
Compaction is a critical factor in preparing specimens for laboratory
evaluation. The purpose of any laboratory compaction process is to simulate, as
closely as possible, actual compaction produced in the field. Factors such as the
orientation and interlocking of aggregate particles, the extent of interparticle
24
contact, air-void content and void structure, and number of interconnected voids
should be closely reproduced.
The investigators ranked compaction devices, based on their abilities to
consistently simulate the engineering properties of field cores, as follows:
1) Texas gyratory-shear compactor,
2) California kneading compactor and mobile steel wheel simulator,
3) Arizona vibratory/kneading compactor, and
4) Marshall hammer.
Mohamed and Yue (1994) stated that gyratory compaction seems to produce
compacted mixtures with engineering properties similar to those produced in the
field.
Gervais and Abd El Halim (1990) conducted extensive field and laboratory
research to evaluate the potential of a newly developed compactor, called "AMIR",
to minimize the rutting problem. They concluded that, the mechanical properties of
asphalt pavements are significantly influenced by using compaction method, and
that the density of asphalt concrete mixes alone is not a reliable criterion for asphalt
evaluation. It is also shown that the current rollers may result in a poor compaction
at the edges of the paved lanes and this deficiency has a major effect on the
problem of rutting.
2.5.3 Thickness of Asphalt Layer

In a circular laboratory test track, Hofstra and Kolomp (1972) examined the
effect of thickness of the asphalt layer, under constant temperature (30°C) and a
large number of wheel load repetitions (195,000) on rutting resistance. They
illustrated that while the absolute deformation in the asphalt concrete layers
increases with layer thickness, the relative deformation decreases as thickness
increase. This is explained by the fact that the most efficient way to reduce tensile
and shear stresses in the asphalt concrete surface is to increase its thickness. They
25
also reported that the next most efficient way is to reduce the difference in modulus
between the surface and base layer, that is, to reduce the E 1 /E 2 ratio, where E 1 and
E 2 are the moduli of the upper and lower layers respectively. Finally, it is noted
that the maximum value of shear stress occurred at the bottom of thin surface layers
(3 inches) and at the upper part of a thick surface course layer (9 inches).
According to Arabani et al. (2010), there are two principal solutions to
construct a more durable pavement; firstly, applying a thicker asphalt pavement
which will increase the construction cost and; secondly, making an asphalt mixture
with modified characteristics.
The required asphalt concrete thicknesses vary over a significant smaller
range. The asphalt concrete thickness is influenced only by the structural layer
coefficients of the base and surface layers. The subgrade stiffness has no impact at
all on the determination of the surface layer thickness at least when following
strictly the 1993 AASHTO Guide recommended procedure for computing layer
thicknesses (Stephanos, 2007).
2.6 Material Testing

The overall objective of materials testing should be reproduced as closely as
practical in situ pavement conditions, including the general stress state,
temperature, moisture, and general condition of the material. Types of tests
presently used to characterize the permanent deformation response of pavement
materials include the following (SHRP, 1991):
• Uniaxial stress tests: unconfined cylindrical specimens in creep, repeated, or
dynamic loading.
• Triaxial stress tests: confined cylindrical specimens in creep, repeated or
dynamic loading.
• Diametral tests: briquette specimens in creep or repeated loading.
• Wheel – track tests: slab specimens or actual pavement cross-sections.
26
These tests are used to evaluate the elastic, viscoelastic, plastic and shear
strength parameters of asphalt concrete.
2.7 Analytical Models

The development of design methods to predict rutting can be achieved by
using realistic approaches and simple models which account for rutting resistance.
It is clear that such models should rely on the mechanical characteristics of asphalt
concrete mixtures. The models can be classified into Mechanistic-Empirical,
Regression and Artificial Neural Network based models.
2.7.1 Mechanistic Empirical Approach:
Mechanics is the science of motion and the action of forces on bodies. Thus,
a mechanistic approach seeks to explain phenomena only by reference to physical
causes. In pavement design, the phenomena are the stresses, strains and deflections
within a pavement structure, and the physical causes are the loads and material
properties of the pavement structure. The relationship between these phenomena
and their physical causes is typically described by using a mathematical model.
Various mathematical models can be used but the most common is a layered elastic
model.
Along with this mechanistic approach, empirical elements are used when
defining what value of the calculated stresses, strains and deflections result in
pavement failure. The relationship between physical phenomena and pavement
failure is described depending on empirically derived equations that compute the
number of loading cycles to failure.
The basic advantages of a mechanistic-empirical pavement design method

over a purely empirical one are:
27
• It can be used for both existing pavement rehabilitation and new pavement
construction.
• It accommodates changing load types.
• It can better characterize materials allowing for:
o Better utilization of available materials.
o Accommodation of new materials.
o An improved definition of existing layer properties.
• It uses material properties that relate better to actual pavement performance.
• It provides more reliable performance predictions.
• It better defines the role of construction.
• It accommodates environmental and aging effects on materials.
The benefit of a mechanistic-empirical approach is its ability to accurately

characterize in situ material (including subgrade and existing pavement structures).
This is typically done by using a portable device (like a Falling Weight
Diflectometer) to make actual field deflection measurements on a pavement
structure to be overlaid. These measurements can then be input into equations to
determine existing pavement structural support (often called "backcalculation") and
the approximate remaining pavement life. This allows for a more realistic design
for the given conditions.
Several studies over the past fifteen years have advanced mechanistic-
empirical techniques. Most of work, however, was based on variants of the same
two strain-based criteria developed by Shell and the Asphalt Institute. The NCHRP
1-37A project (NCHRP, 2004) delivered the most recent M-E-based method that
incorporates nationally calibrated models to predict distinct distresses induced by
traffic load and environmental conditions. The NCHRP 1-37A methodology also
incorporates vehicle class and load distributions in the design, a step forward from
the Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) approach used in the AASTHO design
28
equation and other methods. The performance computation is done on a seasonal
basis to incorporate the effects of climate conditions on the behavior of materials.
2.7.2 Regression Model Approach:
Regression analysis is a statistical technique that attempts to explore and

model the relationship between two or more variables. Regression analysis forms
an important part of the statistical analysis of the data obtained from designed
experiments.
Linear regression model attempts to explain the relationship between two or
more variables using a straight line. A surprisingly large number of problems can
be solved by linear regression, and even more by means of transformation of the
original variables that result in linear relationships among the transformed
variables. Mathematically, the regression model is represented by the following
equation:
Yi = a + b Xi + ei
(2.2)
where Y is the dependent variable, X is the independent variable, the subscript i

refers to the ith observation and e i is the difference between the ith observation and
the model; e i is also called the error term.
The regression model is based on the following assumptions:
• The relationship between X and Y is linear.

• The expected value of the error term is zero
• The variance of the error term is constant for all the values of the
independent variable, X. This is the assumption of homoscedasticity.
• There is no autocorrelation. E (e iej ) = 0.
• The independent variable is uncorrelated with the error term.
29
• The error term is normally distributed.
Multiple regression is a flexible method of data analysis that may be appropriate

whenever a quantitative variable (the dependent or criterion variable) is to be examined
in relationship to any other factors (expressed as independent or predictor variables).
Relationships may be nonlinear, independent variables may be quantitative or
qualitative, and one can examine the effects of a single variable or multiple variables
with or without the effects of other variables taken into account (Cohen, Cohen, West,
& Aiken, 2003). A multiple regression equation for predicting Y can be expressed as
follows:
𝑌𝑌 = 𝐴𝐴 + 𝐵𝐵1 𝑋𝑋1 + 𝐵𝐵2 𝑋𝑋2 + 𝐵𝐵3 𝑋𝑋3 + … + 𝐵𝐵𝑛𝑛 𝑋𝑋𝑛𝑛 (2.3)
Laurinavicius and Oginskas (2006) showed that the regression model allows
calculating the rutting depth sustaining the measured modulus of elasticity of
asphalt concrete. Kandhal and Cooley (2003) made an effort to correlate rut test
results with actual field rutting using numerous regression models.
2.7.3 Artificial Neural Network Approach:
An artificial neural network is a parallel information-processing system that

has certain performance characteristics similar to biological neural networks. A
neural net consists of a large number of simple processing elements called neurons.
Each neuron is connected to other neurons by means of directed links, each
directed link has a weight associated with it. The weights acquired through the
training process represent abstracted information from dataset, which is used by the
net to solve a particular problem. In order to construct a neural network for solving
a particular problem, three key components need to be determined first. They are
(1) Architecture, (2) Learning method, and (3) Neuron activation function (TRB,
2003).
30
Neural nets are often classified as single layer or multilayer. In determining
the number of layers, the input units are not counted as a layer, because they
perform no computation. Equivalently, the number of layers in the net can be
defined to be the number of layers of weighted interconnect links between the slabs
of neurons. It can be created a single (composite) layer of neurons having
different transfer functions as in Figure (2-10) below:
Figure (2-10) A Single-Layer Neural Net.
A network can have several layers. Each layer has a weight matrix W, a
bias vector (b), and an output vector (a). To distinguish between the weight
matrices, output vectors, etc. layer notation in the three layer network shown in
Figure (2-11) below:
31
Figure (2-11) Multiple Layers of Neurons.
Literature review shows increasing popularity of this approach in pavement

performance modeling. Lou et al. (2001) developed a neural network model to
forecast pavement crack condition. Shekharan (2000) developed neural network
models to predict the pavement conditions of five families of pavements: original
flexible, overlaid flexible, composite, jointed, and continuously reinforced concrete
pavements. Owusu-Ababio (1998) applied neural networks to model the
performance of thick asphalt pavement (thickness ≥ 152.4 mm). Attoh-Okine et al.
(1994) applied a neural network to develop a pavement roughness progression
model. Yang et al (2003) developed three individual ANN models to predict the
three key indices, crack rating, ride rating, and rut rating used by Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) for pavement evaluation purposes.
There are different types of artificial neural network types such as back-
propagation algorithms (BP), radial basis function network (RBF), probabilistic
neural networks (PNN), and generalized regression neural networks (GRNN). The
best-known example of a neural network training algorithm is back-propagation
32
which is based on a gradient-descent optimization technique (Ceylan and
Gopalakrishnan, 2006).
2.8 Types of Rutting Prediction Models

2.8.1. Layered Permanent Strain Approach
In this approach, the permanent vertical strain is determined in each layer of
the pavement structure as a function of the number of repeated load applications.
This vertical strain is then multiplied by the layer thickness to obtain the permanent
deformation of the layer. The permanent deformations of the various layers are then
added up to obtain the total rutting at the surface.
Various models that determine the accumulation of permanent strain with the
number of wheel load applications and structural layer have been evaluated by
Barenberg and Thompson (1992).
The Barenberg/Thompson study concluded that the equations or models
relating the log of permanent strain to the log of wheel load repetitions were the
most appropriate. These models take the following form:
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿�𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 � = 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑏𝑏 × 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿(𝑁𝑁) (2.4)
Where:
εp = Permanent or plastic strain.
a,b = Regression coefficients.
N = Number of repeated axle load applications.
2.8.2. Plastic-Elastic Vertical Strain Ratio Approach

Another approach that has been used for predicting the rutting in different
layers is termed the plastic-elastic or resilient strain ratio. It determines and
evaluates the resulting permanent strain as a percentage of the resilient strain (Von
and Moulthrop, 2007):
33
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
= 𝑎𝑎 (𝑁𝑁)𝑏𝑏 (2.5)
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
Where:
εp = Accumulated plastic strain at N repetitions of load.
εr = Resilient strain of the asphalt material as a function of mixture properties,
temperature and time rate of loading.
N = Number of axle load repetitions.
a,b = Non-linear regression coefficients.
A field adjustment or shift factor, 𝛽𝛽𝑟𝑟 , is required to provide reasonable
correlations between the predicted rut depths and field observations as follows:
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
= 𝛽𝛽𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎 𝑁𝑁 𝑏𝑏 (2.6)
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
Or
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = 𝛽𝛽𝑟𝑟 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎 𝑁𝑁 𝑏𝑏 (2.7)
Where:
εp = Accumulated plastic strain at N repetitions of load.
βr = Field adjustment or shift factor.
εr = Resilient strain of the asphalt material as a function of mixture properties,
temperature and time rate of loading.
N = Number of axle load repetitions.
a,b = Non-linear regression coefficients.
2.8.3. Permanent Strain Rate Approach

It is a modified form of the classical power model (Von and Moulthrop, 2007):
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑝𝑝 𝜕𝜕�𝑎𝑎 𝑁𝑁 𝑏𝑏 �
= 𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = (2.8)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Or
34
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 𝑎𝑎 𝑏𝑏 𝑁𝑁 (𝑏𝑏−1) (2.9)
Where:
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = Permanent or plastic strain.
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = Plastic strain per load repetition.
In the plastic strain per load repetition above, the resilient strain, 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 , is
generally assumed to be independent of the load repetitions value, N. The ratio of
plastic to resilient strain components of the material in question can be defined by:
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎 𝑏𝑏
= � � 𝑁𝑁 𝑏𝑏−1 (2.10)
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟 𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
Where:
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = Plastic strain per load repetition.
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = Resilient strain of the asphalt material as a function of mixture properties,
temperature, and time rate of loading.
The mathematical relationship in Equation (2.12) is further obtained when
applying the elements expressed in Equations (2.13) and (2.14):
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
= 𝜇𝜇 𝑁𝑁 −𝛼𝛼 (2.11)
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
Where:
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = Permanent strain due to a single load application.
35
μ = At Nth application, mu (μ) is the permanent deformation parameter representing
the constant of proportionality between permanent strain and elastic strain (i.e.,
plastic strain at N-1).
a = Permanent deformation parameter indicating the rate of decrease in permanent
deformation as the number of load applications increase.
When Letting:
𝛼𝛼 𝑏𝑏
𝜇𝜇 = (2.12)
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
And when letting:

𝛼𝛼 = 1 − 𝑏𝑏 (2.13)
Where:
μ = At Nth application, mu (μ) is the permanent deformation parameter representing
the constant of proportionality between permanent strain and elastic strain (i.e.,
plastic strain at N-1).
a = Permanent deformation parameter indicating the rate of decrease in permanent
deformation as the number of load applications increase.
b = Slope of deformation curve.
Table (2-2) gives summary of different types of models from previous
researchers for HMA permanent deformation.
36
Author and
Model Test
Year
MEPDG2002: εp Repeated load

HMA = a1T a2 N a3 permanent
Permanent εr deformation
Deformation tests
ε p = Accumulated plastic strain at N repetitions of load (in/in)
ε r = Resilient strain of the asphalt material as a function of the mix properties, temperature and time rate
of loading (in/in).
N = number of load repetitions.
T = temperature (0F).
a i = non-linear regression coefficients.
After introduction of field calibration factors, and after having been partially calibrated based on 88 LTPP
sections located in 28 states of the US, the following model was proposed:
εp
= β r1k z 10 kr1 T kr 3 ×β r 3 N kr 2 ×β r 2
εr
ε p = Accumulated permanent strain, in/in., ε r = Resilient strain, in/in. ε r =

1
(σ z − µσ x − µσ y )
E*
k z = (C1 + C2 D )0.32819 D , When
k z = Depth confinement factor., C1 = −0.1039(hHMA ) + 2.4868hHMA − 17.342
2
C2 = 0.0172(hHMA ) − 1.7331hHMA + 27.428

2
D=Depth below the surface, in.

h HMA =Total HMA thickness, in.
k r1 , k r2 , k r3 = Global calibration factors from the NCHRP Project 1-37A calibration effort k r1 =-3.448,
37
Author and
Model Test
Year
k r2 =0.4791, k r3 =1.5606.
Global calibration factors from the NCHRP Project 1-40D recalibration effort k r1 =-3.35412 and the other
factors remained unchanged.
T = Mixing temperature, oF.
β r1 , β r 2 , β r 3 = Local or mixture field calibration constants, all set to 1.0 during the calibration efforts
under NCHRP Projects 1-37A and 1-40D.
N = Number of load repetitions.
E * = Complex modulus of asphalt as a function of the mix properties, temperature, and time of loading.
n sublayers
The permanent or plastic deformation is: PD = ∑ ε ip × h i
i =1
PD = Pavement permanent or plastic deformation, inches., n sublayers = Number of sublayers.
ε ip = Total plastic strain in sublayer i and hi = Thickness of sublayer i.
WesTrack Two models were developed from the study:

Permanent
Deformation Level I: rut depth is a function of ESALs, air voids, asphalt content (percent by weight), and the percent
Model of aggregate finer than the number 200 sieve.
WesTrack Level II analysis consists of calculating the permanent shear strain 

( ) at 50 mm below the surface, shear
2000, stress () and compressive strain (v) on top of the subgrade.
Monismith et
al. 2000 γ p = aebτ γ e N c
γ p = Plastic or inelastic shear strain at a depth of 2 inches (50 mm) below the surface, in./in.
γ e = Elastic shear strain at the same depth noted above, in./in.

38
Author and
Model Test
Year
 = Shear stress computed at a depthof 2 inches from the surface using an elastic response model, psi.
N = Number of axle load applications and a,b,c = Regression constants.
In the HMA under in-situ conditions the equation will be:
c
 1

 γ 
γ p ,1 = a1[∆N t ]c and γ p ,t   + ∆N t 
c
p ,t −1
= at 
 a 
 t  
γ p ,1 = Plastic shear strain at the first hour or intercept.
c = Regression constant., a 1 = Regression coefficient., ∆N t = Number of load applications during the th

hour. γ p,t = Plastic shear strain at the tth hour and at = aebτ γ e,t
Where:
a = Regression constant.
b = Shear stress.
γ e,t = Elastic shear strain at the th hour.

t = The nth hour of traffic applications.
The rutting, estimated in the HMA layer due to the shear deformation is
RDHMA = K rγ p ,t
RDHMA = Rut depth in the HMA.

K r = A coefficient relating rut depth to plastic strain and developed from finite element analyses of
representative pavement structures (Sousa et al. 1991, SHRP 1994). K r is related to the thickness of the
39
Author and
Model Test
Year
HMA layer and is given in Table below (WesTrack 2000, Monismith et al. 2000).
γ p,t = Plastic shear strain at the tth hour.

Suggested Values of K as Function of HMA Layer Thickness
HMA Thickness, inches K r -Value
5 to 7 5.5
7 to 9 7.0
9 to 12 8.5
>12 10.0
The total rut depth measured at the surface of the pavement is the estimated rut depth from the HMA
layers plus the rut depth from the unbound layers and subgrade soil:
I
RD = RDHMA + ∑ RDi
i =1
RD = Total rut depth., RD HMA = Rut depth in the HMA and I = Rut depth in the ith layer.
VESYS ε p = IN s axial repeated

Permanent load (creep)
Deformation test
Model (Kenis
α = I −S
1977, FHWA IS
1978) µ=
Er
I = Linear intercept with the permanent strain axis, S = Slope of the linear portion of the logarithmic
relationship, E r = Resilient modulus, p = Accumulated permanent strain, and N = Number of repeated
axle load applications.
40
Author and
Model Test
Year
Ohio State εp Repeated load

= A( N )
−m
University test
Model N
(Majidzadeh
p = Permanent strain, in./in, N = Number of allowable axle load applications, A = Experimental
et al. 1980)
constant dependent on material type and stress state, and m = Experimental constant dependent on
material type.
Asphalt log ε p = −14.97 + 0.408 log N + 6.865 log T + 1.107 log σ d

Institute
Model (Al − 0.117 logV + 1.908 log Peff + 0.971logVv
1983, May
and Witczak p = Permanent or plastic strain, in./in, N = Number of load repetitions to failure, T = Temperature, oF,
1992) d = Deviator stress, lbf/in2, V = Viscosity at 21 oC (70 oF), Ps x 106, P eff = Percent by volume of
effective asphalt and V v = Percent volume of air voids.
Leahy Model ε  Dynamic

(Leahy 1989) log p  = −6.631 + 0.435 log N + 2.767 log T + 0.110 log σ d repeated load
 εr  using
+ 0.118 logη + 0.930 logVbeff + 0.5011 logVa compression
test
R 2 = 0.76
ε p = Accumulated plastic strain at N axle load repetitions, ε r = Resilient strain of the HMA layer as a
function of mixture properties, temperature, and time rate of loading, N = Number of axle load
repetitions, T = Mixing temperature, oF, σ d = Deviatoric stress, psi, η = Viscosity at 70 0F (106 poise).
V beff = Effective asphalt content, percent by volume and V a = Air void content, percent.
Ayers Model Log Quadratic

Ayers 1997
41
Author and
Model Test
Year
ε p
log

[
 = [− 277161 + 1.451074 log T ] + − 0.17796 + 0.36640 log N − 0.0915 log N 2 ]
 εr 
R 2 = 0.734
function of mixture properties, temperature, and time rate of loading, T = Mixing temperature, oF and N =
Number of axle load repetitions.
Log Linear
ε p 
log  = −4.80661 + 2.58155 log T + 0.429561 log N
 εr 
R 2 = 0.725
Kaloush and ε p 
Witczak Log   = −3.74938 + 2.02755 log T + 0.4262 log N
Model  εr 
(Witczak et al.
2002) R 2 = 0.73
And
42
Author and
Model Test
Year
ε p 
Log   = 0.1981 + 0.4041 log N
 εr 
R 2 = 0.63
function of mixture properties, temperature, and time rate of loading, and N = Number of axle load
repetitions.
Flow Model
(Witczak et al.
( )
N flow = 1.00788 × 105 T −1.6801S −0.1502η 0.2179Vbeff
−3.6444 −0.9421
Va Repeated load
test
2002) Se
= 0.4306, R 2 = 0.8336
Sy
N Flow = Flow point, T = Mixing temperature, S = Deviator stress, psi,  = Viscosity at 70oF (106 poise).
V beff = Effective asphalt content, percent by volume, V a = Air void content, percent, S e = Standard error.
S y = Standard deviation and R = Regression correlation coefficient.
log ε p = C 0 + C1 (log N ) + C 2 (log N ) + C 3 (log N )

Allen and 2 3
Deen Model
1980
ε p = Permanent strain (axial), in/in, N = Number of stress repetitions and C i = Regression coefficient
refer to Table below (Allen and Deen 1980).
Regression Coefficients for the Allen and Deen Rutting Prediction Model
Coeff. HMA Dense-Grade Aggregate Base Subgrade
43
Author and
Model Test
Year
C0 − 0.000663T 2 + 0.1521T − − 4.41 + (0.173 + 0.003W ) × − 6.5 + 0.38W

13.304 + (1.46 − 0.00572T ) σ 1 − (0.00075 + 0.0029W ) − 1.1(log σ 3 )
× log σ 1 ×σ3 + 1.86(log σ 1 )
C1 0.63974 0.72 10(-1.1+0.1W)
C2 -0.10392 -0.142+0.092(logW) 0.018W
C3 0.00938 0.0066-0.004(logW) 0.007-0.001W
T = Temperature, °F, σ 1 = Deviator stress, lbf/in2, W = Moisture content, percent.

σ 3 = Confining pressure, lbf/in2.
Asphalt- ε p = A( N )b = a(t1 )mc − ε rt Triaxial
Aggregate repeated load
Mixture permanent
And
Analysis deformation
ε p = a(t1 )mc (1 − X )
System test
ε p = Permanent strain (axial), in/in.

A,b,a,m c = Regression constants for the creep curve in the steady state region.
N = Number of stress repetitions.
t l = Loading time for one cycle of a repeated load permanent deformation test, sec.
X = Recoverable creep ratio measured during a triaxial creep-recovery test, dimensionless or
ε rt
, ε ct = ε il + ε cr
ε ct
44
Author and
Model Test
Year
ε rt = ε ir + ε R
ε ir = Instantaneous resilient or recovered strain after load release, in./in.
ε R = Recovered strain or relaxation during the rest period of one loading cycle, in./in.
ε il = Instantaneous strain measured after load application, in./in.
ε cr = Creep strain measured during one load application or cycle, in./in.
b=
3.5563mc + Log (a ) + Log (1 + X ) − Log a(0.1) [ mc
− ε rt ]
4.5563
b = Regression coefficients.
a,m c = Regression constants for the creep curve on the steady state region.
X = Recoverable creep ratio measured during a triaxial creep – recovery test, dimensionless.
ε rt = Instantaneous resilient or recovered strain after load release, in/in.

Michigan log RD = −1.6 + 0.067Va − 1.4T AC + 0.07Tavg − 0.000434 KVa Limited field
State Model data
Baladi 1987 + 0.15 log(ESAL ) − 0.4 log M R − 0.50 log Ebase + 0.1 log δ 0
+ 0.01 log ε v − 0.7 log TB EQ + 0.09 log(50 − T AC − TB EQ )
RD = Rut depth, in., T avg = Average annual temperature, F, T AC = Thickness of the HMA layer, inches.
KV a = Kinematic viscosity, δ 0 = Surface deflection for referenced condition, inches, TB EQ = Equivalent

thickness of the base, inches, ESAL = Number of 80-kN (18-kip) ESALs at which the rut depth is being
calculated, M R = Resilient modulus of the HMA, E base = Modulus of the base, ε v = Average vertical
resilient strain and V a = Air voids.
45
Author and
Model Test
Year
Shell  σ  Compressive
International ∆h = C m h AC  c  creep test
Model Shell  E mix 
1978
h = Thickness reduction in HMA layer, mm.
C m = Correction factor for dynamic effect that is a function of mixture type with values ranging from 1 to
2 (Table below).
h AC = Thickness of the HMA layer, mm.
c = Average vertical compressive stress in the HMA layer, kPa.
E mix = Modulus of the HMA material, kPa.
Correction Factors, C m , for the Shell International Procedure to Predict Rutting
HMA Type Cm
Open Sand Sheet & Lean Sand Mixes 1.6-2.0
Lean Bitumen Macadam 1.5-1.8
Dense Graded HMA 1.2-1.6

Gravel Sand Asphalt
Dense Bitumen Macadam
Mastic Asphalt Types 1.0-1.3

Gussasphalt
Dense Hot Rolled Asphalt
Verstraeten bHMA Repeated load

 σ − σ  N 
Plastic Strain ε p = A 1 * 3   unconfined or
Model  E  1000 f  confined
Verstraeten triaxial
46
Author and
Model Test
Year
1982 ε p = Permanent or plastic strain, in/in, E* = Dynamic modulus of the HMA mix, psi, σ 1 = Vertical permanent
deformation
stress, psi, σ 3 = Radial stress, psi, N = Number of load cycles, f = Frequency of loads, cps and A,b HMA = tests
Regression coefficients (for conventional mixes; A=57.5 and b HMA = 0.25).
CalME    − ln (N )   ln (N )    β ×τ 
Repeated
approach γ p = exp  A + α × 1 − exp   × 1 +  × exp 
 ×γ e Simple Shear
Deacon 2002    γ   γ     0. 1MPa  Tests at
Constant
N = number of load applications. Height
τ = the shear stress calculated at a depth of 50 mm at the edge of the tire.
γ e = the elastic shear strain calculated as indicated below.
A, α, β, γ, and δ = constants determined from Repeated Simple Shear Tests at Constant Height.
τ
γe =
E / (1 − v )
v = poisons ratio.
E = the modulus of the layer under consideration.
Leahy 1989 log σ D

and Kenis et α = 1.748418 − 0.446558 log T − 2.65284
al. 2002 34.03532 − 0.253679T
log σ D
µ = 1.663759 − 0.438729 log T − 1.25191
1.918523 + 0.066875T
T = Temperature, 0F.
σ D = Deviator stress, psi.

AASHO Road Rut Depth (inches ) = A × N b1 × SN b 2 × P b3
Test 1958-
47
Author and
Model Test
Year
1960 A, b1, b2, b3 = obtained from the regression analysis, N = number of load repetitions, SN = structural
number and P = load.
µ = −0.532 + T 0.0245 + 0.00006 ×

 σ 
∆σ
0.031

(
; R 2 = 0.608 )
 1  − 0.987 
  σ 3  
 
α = 1.214 − 0.5937 × µ ; (R 2 = 0.416)
σ 1 and σ 3 = principle stresses, kPa, ∆σ = deviator stress, kPa and T = temperature, 0C.
Sun and τ 
0.468 Wheel-
0.752× i 
Hachiya 2008 n
 0.58   τ 0i
tracking test
RD = ∑10 −5.542 × Ti 2.524 × 

× NV 
i =1  V 
To shift the model from the laboratory to actual pavement, calibration process was made to consider not
only the downward rut depth but also upheaval on the two neighboring sides of rut:
0.472
τ 
0.743× i 
n
 0.58   τ 0i
RD = ∑10−5.72 × Ti 2.512 × 

× NV 
i =1  V 
RD = rut depth, T = temperature, 0C, V = the speed of interest, N V = the number of load repetitions, τ i =
shear stress in pavement and τ 0i = account for the shear strength of asphalt concrete measured by (Static
Uniaxial Penetration Test) SUPT.
48
Author and
Model Test
Year
1−α AC
Lin and Chen t × µ AC  l 
( )
1
RD = AC × ∑ ni , AC ε ie, AC 1−α AC
1 − α AC  i =1 
2005

1−α base
t × µ base  l 
( )
1
+ base × ∑ ni ,base ε ie,base 1−α base

1 − α base  i =1 
1−α subbase
× µ subbase  l 
( )
1
t
+ subbase × ∑ ni ,subbase ε ie,subbase 1−α subbase

1 − α subbase  i =1 
1−α subgrade
t subgrade × µ subgrade  l 
× ∑ ni ,subgrade (ε i ,subgrade )1−α subgrade 
1
+
1 − α subgrade  i =1 
Or
1 1−α j
tj ×µj
 l 
( )
X
RD = ∑ × ∑ ni , j ε ie, j 1−αj

j =1 1 − α j  i =1 
RD = rut depth, X = number of layers in pavement, l = loading type, t j = thickness of layer j.
µ j = permanent deformation parameter representing the proportion between plastic and elastic strains
for layer j.
α j = a negative exponent indicating that the rate of permanent deformation decreases with increasing
load applications, reflecting the hardening effect of layer j, n i, j = is the repetition number and ε i,e j =
vertical elastic compressive strain in a pavement layer j.
Yassoub 2005 ε vp = 4.7195 × 10 −9 × σ 0.868 × t 0.658 × T 1.974 Repeated

creep and
recovery test
ε vp = visco-plastic strain, σ = level of applied stress, t = time of loading and T = degree of
temperature.
The developed form of the accumulated permanent strain as a function of the number of repetitions
49
Author and
Model Test
Year
ε p ( N ) is:
log ε p ( N ) = log ε vp + S log N
S = slope.
Albayati 2006 LE p = − 34.463 + 0.983 log N ( 0.00973T + 0.00284 S ) + 1.961 log T + 1.812 log S Repeated
axial load
+ 0.656 log D − 36.277 log B − 4.951log F − 1.455 log A − 1.93 log M
alpha = 1.391 − 0.011T − 0.0054 S − 0.252 D − 0.0212 E
Mu = 4.1896559 + 0.02T − 0.13091F − 0.00019T 2 + 0.000312 S 2 − 0.04305 A 2

− 0.00112 S .V + 0.031432 S .D + 0.570402 D. A − 127.263 D.B
+ 0.511025 D.E − 0.08536 A.E + 9.96448M .B
LE p = log of accumulated permanent microstrain at N load repetition, N = load repetition, T = test

temperature in degree centigrade (◦C), S = stress level (psi), D = applied stress duration (sec.), B = percent
absorbed asphalt (by weight of aggregate), A = percent air voids, M = percent voids in the mineral
aggregate, F = voids filed with asphalt and E = percent effective asphalt (by volume of mix). And V =
viscosity at 20 ◦C (106 poise).
Abed A. H. log ε p = -9.473 + 0.532 log N +1.798 log T + 0.838 log σ -0.672 log η +0.448 log Ac Repeated
2010 axial load test
where:
ε p = permanent plastic strain, N = number of load repetition, T = temperature, 0C, σ = stress level, psi.
η = viscosity, pa.sec. and Ac = asphalt content, %.
50
2.9 Resilient Strain Models:
Terrel (1967) measured axial strain by placing two circular clamps around
the sample then measure their relative movement with a pair of small LVDT's.
Dehlen (1969) modified Terrel's clamps so that they only contacted the sample (or
to be precise, the surface of the membrane surrounding the sample) over two short
length at opposite ends of a diameter, and held in contact by light springs.
Barksdale (1972) used similar arrangements for measuring resilient axial strain.
However, Barksdale observed that there was a "scatter" in the permanent axial
strain at large numbers of load repetitions when these clamps were used, and his
permanent deformation results are based on measurements taken outside the cell.
He concluded that this scatter may happen due to a slip between the sample and the
membrane or between the membrane and the clamps.
Leahy (1989) based on the repeated load tests for 251 cylindrical asphalt
concrete specimens proposed the following relationship for the resilient strain
prediction:
log 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = −8.652 + 4.207 𝑇𝑇 + 1.01 𝑆𝑆 − 0.233 𝑉𝑉 + 0.992 𝐸𝐸𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 0.476 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 (2.14)
Where:
log 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = Resilient strain.
S = Log stress in psi.
T = Log temperature in oF.
V = Log (asphalt viscosity in 106 poise).
E ac = log effective asphalt content (percent by volume).
Vol = log percent air voids.

51
CHAPTER THREE
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
3.1 Introduction:
This chapter presents the experimental work which consists of materials

selected for the preparation of the specimens, mixture design procedure used in the
design process, volumetric design, selection of optimum asphalt binder content,
specimens testing and test results analysis.
3.2 Materials:
The materials used in this research include two types of asphalt binder; three
types of aggregates gradation and one type of mineral filler. The main properties of
these materials are presented in the following articles.
3.2.1 Asphalt Binder:
Two types of asphalt binder were employed from AL Daurah refinery

including (40-50) and (60-70) penetration graded binders. The physical properties
of these binders are presented in Table (3-1).
Table (3-1): Physical Properties of Asphalt Binder
ASTM Asphalt Binder
Test Test Conditions Units
Designation 40-50 60-70
100 gm, 25 oC, 5
Penetration D5 1/10 mm 46 63
sec., 0.1 mm.
135 oC 0.496 0.35
Viscosity o D4402 Pas.sec.
165 C 0.145 0.108
Specific
25 oC D70 ---- 1.03 1.02
Gravity
Ductility 25 oC, 5 cm/min. D113 cm > 100 > 100
o
Flash Point D92 C 290 272
o o
Softening Point (4±1) C/min. D36 C 49 46
52
3.2.2 Aggregates:
The local aggregates used in laboratory work is crushed quartz from Al-
Nibaie quarry which is widely used for asphalt mixes in Baghdad city. Three
aggregates gradations were used in this work as shown in Figures (3-1-a, b and c)
for wearing, leveling and base courses which are nominal maximum aggregates
size of 1/2”, 3/4” and 1” respectively. The gradations are presented in Table (3-2)
whereas the physical properties of aggregates are shown in Table (3-3).
Wearing Course Gradation
100
90
% Percent Passing Weight
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01
0 0.0750.1 0.3 1 2.36 4.75 9.51012.5 19.0 100
Sieve Size, mm
Iraqi Specification Requirements
Figure (3-1-a) Asphalt Mixture Gradation with Iraqi Specification Limits.
53
Leveling Course Gradation
100
90

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 0.075
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
2.36
4.75
25.0
0.3
12.5
19.0
9.5
0
Sieve Size, mm
Figure (3-1-b) Asphalt Mixture Gradation with Iraqi Specification Limits.
Base Course Gradation
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
37.5
Sieve Size, mm
Figure (3-1-c) Asphalt Mixture Gradation with Iraqi Specification Limits.
54
Table (3-2) Selected Gradations for Asphalt Concrete Mixtures.
Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)

mm Wearing Course Leveling Course Base Course
1 ½” 37.5 ------ ------ 100
1” 25.0 ------ 100 95
¾” 19.0 100 93 83
½” 12.5 93 80 68
3/8” 9.5 85 68 58
No.4 4.75 58 45 43
No.8 2.36 32 32 32
No.50 300 µm 12 12 11
No.200 75 µm 6 6 5
Table (3-3) Physical Properties of Coarse and Fine Aggregates.
ASTM Test Superpave Coarse Fine

Property
No. Specification Aggregate Aggregate
C-127 and
Bulk Specific Gravity ------ 2.610 2.640
C-128
Apparent Specific C-127 and
------ 2.688 2.710
Gravity C-128
Percent Water C-127 and
------ 0.448 0.720
Absorption C-128
Percent Wear (Loss
C-131 35-45 Max. 19.200 ------
Angeles Abrasion)
Soundness loss by
sodium C-88 10-20 Max. 3.210 ------
sulfate solution,%
Fractured pieces, % ------ 95 Min. 96 ------
Sand Equivalent, % D-2419 45 Min. ------ 55
55
3.2.3 Mineral Filler:
Limestone dust was used as a filler material. It is a non plastic filler
produced in the lime factory in Karbala governorate. The physical properties of the
filler used are shown in Table (3-4).
Table (3-4) Physical Properties of Mineral Filler.
Property Test Result

Specific Gravity 2.743
Passing Sieve No.200 (0.075 mm) 95
3.3 Mixture Design:

Superpave criteria was used to design the three types of asphalt mixtures.
Specimens are required to be mixed and compacted under equiviscous temperature
conditions corresponding to 0.170±0.02 Pas.sec. and 0.280±0.03 Pas.sec
respectively (Asphalt Institute, 1994). Brookfield rheometer (rotational viscometer
device). Figure (3-2) was used to measure the viscosity at two temperatures 135 oC
and 165 oC for each asphalt binder type according to (ASTM D4402). Figure (3-3)
shows the temperature - viscosity relationship. Mixing and compacting
temperatures were obtained from this chart. Table (3-5) shows the values of mixing
and compaction temperatures for (40-50) and (60-70) penetration graded.
Table (3-5) Mixing and Compaction Temperatures for Asphalt Binder
Penetration Grades.
Asphalt Binder Penetration Grade

Temperature
(40-50) (60-70)
Mixing temperature, oC. 162 153
Compaction temperature, oC. 148 142
56
Figure (3-2) Photograph of Rotational Viscometer Device
1
Viscosity, Pa.sec.
0.31
Compaction range
0.25
0.19
Mixing range
0.15
0.1
120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170
Temperature, 0C
Temperature , oC (40-50) (60-70)
Figure (3-3) Viscosity – Temperature Chart for Binder Types.
57
Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC) in Figure (3-4) was used to prepare
the specimens. The Superpave method, like other mix design methods, creates
several trial aggregate-asphalt binder blends, each with a different asphalt binder
content. Then, by evaluating each trial blend's performance, an optimum asphalt
binder content can be selected. Accordingly, the trial blends must contain a range
of asphalt contents both above and below the optimum asphalt value. Therefore,
the first step in sample preparation is to estimate an optimum asphalt content. Trial
blend asphalt contents are then determined from this estimation.
Figure (3-4) Superpave Gyratory Compactor Device.
The Superpave gyratory compactor was developed to improve mix design

ability to simulate actual field compaction and particle orientation with laboratory
equipments (Roberts, 1996). Each sample is heated to the anticipated mixing
58
temperature, aged for a short time (up to 4 hours) in an oven at 135 oC, stirred
every hour and compacted at compaction temperature. The device applies pressure
to a sample through a hydraulically or mechanically operated load, the compaction
mold and base plates should also be placed in an oven at 135 oC. Key parameters of
the gyratory compactor are:
• Sample size for optimum asphalt content determination was 150 mm

diameter cylinder × 115 mm height. Sample size for rutting test was 100
mm diameter cylinder and 172 height.
• Flat and circular loading ram with a diameter of 149.5 mm (5.89 inches)
corresponding to an area of 175.5 cm2 (27.24 in2).
• Compaction pressure : Typically 600 kPa (87 psi).
• Number of gyrations = N Initial , N Design , N Max. .
• The load is applied to the sample top and covers almost the entire sample
top area. The sample is inclined at (1.25°±0.02) and rotates at 30
revolutions per minute as the load is continuously applied. This helps to
achieve a sample particle orientation that is somewhat like that achieved
in the field after roller compaction.
• The design number of gyrations is a function of climate and traffic level. In
this research N Initial = 8, N Design = 100 and N Max = 160 according to AASHTO
2001 specification, see Table (3-6). Typically, samples are compacted to
N design to establish the optimum asphalt binder content and then additional
samples are compacted to N max as a check. Table (3-7) shows the required
densities as a percentage of theoretical maximum density (TMD) for N initial ,
N design and N max .
59
Figure (3-5) Sample Size (15 cm diameter × 11.5 cm height) for Estimating
Optimum Asphalt Content.
Note that loading gyrations are based on the anticipated traffic level on the
design lane over a 20-year period regardless of actual roadway design life
(AASHTO, 2001).
Table (3-6) Number of Gyrations for N initial , N design and N max (AASHTO, 2001).
20-yr Traffic Loading Number of Gyrations

(in millions of ESALs) N initial N design N max
< 0.3 6 50 75
0.3 to < 3 7 75 115
3 to < 10* 8 (7) 100 (75) 160 (115)
10 to < 30 8 100 160
≥ 30 9 125 205
* When the estimated 20-year design traffic loading is between 3 and < 10 million
ESALs, the agency may, at its discretion, specify N initial = 7, N design = 75 and N max =
115.
60
Table (3-7) Required Densities for N initial , N design and N max (AASHTO, 2001)
Required Density
20-yr Traffic Loading
(as a percentage of TMD)
(in millions of ESALs)
N initial N design N max
< 0.3 ≤ 91.5
0.3 to < 3 ≤ 90.5
3 to < 10 96.0 ≤ 98.0
10 to < 30 ≤ 89.0
≥ 30
3.4 Density and Voids Analysis
All mix design methods use density and voids to determine basic HMA
physical characteristics. Two different measures of densities are typically taken:
1. Bulk specific gravity (G mb ) - often called "bulk density".
2. Theoretical maximum density (TMD, G mm ).
These densities are then used to calculate the volumetric parameters of the
HMA. Measured void expressions are usually:
• Air voids (V a ), or voids in the total mix (VTM).
• Voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA).
• Voids filled with asphalt (VFA).
61
Generally, these values must meet local or superpave criteria. VMA and
VFA must meet the values specified in Table (3-8). Note that traffic loading
numbers are based on the anticipated traffic level on the design lane over a 20-year
period regardless of actual roadway design life (AASHTO, 2000b).
Table (3-8) Minimum VMA Requirements and VFA Range Requirements

(AASHTO, 2001)
20-yr Traffic Loading Minimum % VMA

% VFA
(in millions of 9.5 mm 12.5 mm 19.0 mm 25.0 mm 37.5 mm
Range
ESALs) (0.375 inch) (0.5 inch) (0.75 inch) (1 inch) (1.5 inch)
< 0.3 70 - 80
0.3 to < 3 65 - 78
3 to < 10 15.0 14.0 13.0 12.0 11.0
10 to < 30 65 - 75
≥ 30
3.5 Selection of Optimum Asphalt Binder Content
The optimum asphalt binder content is selected as that asphalt binder content
that results in 4 percent air voids at N design . Even gives many differences when
compared with the Hveem or Marshall methods. Superpave still uses the same
basic mix design steps and still strives for an optimum asphalt binder content that
results in 4 percent design air voids. Thus, the method is quite different but the
ultimate goals remain fairly consistent.
Three trial blends for each asphalt content (optimum, optimum - 0.5,
optimum + 1.0) were prepared for volumetric mix design for each asphalt concrete
mixtures. Table (3-9) shows the properties of mixture compaction for asphalt
binder contents and Table (3-10) gives summary of volumetric mix design
properties in wearing mixture.
62
Table (3-9) Properties of Wearing Mixture Compaction for Asphalt Binder
Content.
Asphalt No. of Height W Mix. G mb Correction G mb

G mm
Content % Gyrations mm gm Estimated Factor Corrected
N Ini. =8 129.510 2.145 2.128
4.3 2.456 N Des. =100 119.290 4911 2.329 0.992 2.311
N Max. =160 117.940 2.356 2.337
N Ini. =8 132.630 2.106 2.089
4.8 2.439 N Des. =100 116.600 4937 2.396 0.992 2.377
N Max. =160 115.370 2.421 2.402
N Ini. =8 127.000 2.222 2.203
5.8 2.404 N Des. =100 116.900 4989 2.415 0.991 2.393
N Max. =160 116.110 2.431 2.409
Table (3-10) Summary of Volumetric Wearing Mixture Properties for Asphalt

Binder.
Asphalt %G mm %G mm %G mm
Content % VTM % VMA % VFA
N Ini. N Des. N Max.
%
4.3 81.470 94.402 95.480 5.597 16.403 65.873
4.8 83.223 97.012 98.064 2.987 15.154 80.288
5.8 85.314 99.242 99.995 0.757 15.333 95.057
The optimum asphalt content is 4.6% for wearing asphalt concrete mixture as
presented in Figure (3-6). The same procedure followed in determination of
wearing mixture optimum asphalt content was used in determining of leveling and
63
base mixtures. Tables (3-11) and (3-13) represent the mix compaction properties
for asphalt binder contents in leveling and base mixtures respectively. The
summary of mixture volumetric properties in leveling and base are presented in
Tables (3-12) and (3-14) respectively. Figures (3-7) and (3-8) shows the volumetric
mix properties in leveling and base mixtures respectively.
Table (3-11) Properties of Leveling Mixture Compaction for Asphalt Binder

Content.
Asphalt
No. of Height W Mix. G mb Correction G mb
Content G mm
Gyrations mm gm Estimated Factor Corrected
%
N Ini. =8 133.850 2.069 2.109
4 2.481 N Des. =100 119.780 4896 2.313 1.019 2.357
N Max. =160 117.940 2.349 2.393
N Ini. =8 131.100 2.124 2.144
4.5 2.463 N Des. =100 117.210 4922 2.376 1.009 2.398
N Max. =160 115.680 2.407 2.430
N Ini. =8 130.550 2.1558 2.138
5.5 2.428 N Des. =100 116.290 4974 2.420 0.991 2.400
N Max. =160 114.940 2.428 2.408
64
% Air Voids Versus Asphalt Content
6
5
% Air voids
4
3
2
1
0
3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5
Ps = 4.6 % Asphalt Binder Content
% VMA Versus Asphalt Content

16.6
16.4
16.2
16
% VMA
15.8
15.6
15.4
15.2
15
3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5
% VFA Versus Asphalt Content

100
90
80
% VFA
70
60
50
3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5
65
Figure (3-6) Volumetric Mixture Properties at N Design for Wearing Mixture.
Table (3-12) Summary of Volumetric Leveling Mixture Properties for Asphalt

Binder.
%
4 84.996 94.980 96.462 5.020 18.185 72.400
4.5 87.034 97.348 98.636 2.652 15.324 78.700
5.5 88.068 98.867 99.200 1.133 14.942 92.421
Table (3-13) Properties of Base Mixture Compaction for Asphalt Binder

Content.
Asphalt
No. of Height W Mix. G mb Correction G mb
Content G mm
Gyrations mm gm Estimated Factor Corrected
%
N Ini. =8 129.750 2.113 2.162
3 2.521 N Des. =100 120.670 4845 2.272 1.023 2.324
N Max. =160 116.720 2.348 2.403
N Ini. =8 131.100 2.102 2.142
3.5 2.503 N Des. =100 118.430 4871 2.333 1.019 2.378
N Max. =160 117.020 2.379 2.425
N Ini. =8 127.000 2.192 2.197
4.5 2.466 N Des. =100 115.190 4922 2.397 1.002 2.402
N Max. =160 113.780 2.447 2.453
Table (3-14) Summary of Volumetric Base Mixture Properties for Asphalt

Binder.
%
3 85.729 92.174 95.299 7.826 19.883 60.640
66
3.5 85.603 95.002 96.903 4.998 17.569 71.553
4.5 89.107 97.416 99.460 2.584 14.516 82.199
% Air Voids Versus Asphalt Content
6
5
% Air Voids 4
3
2
1
0
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Ps = 4.2 % % Asphalt Binder Content
%VMA Versus Asphalt Content

19
18
17
% V.M.A
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
% Asphalt Binder Content
67
95
90
85
% V.F.A
80
75
70
65
60
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Figure (3-7) Volumetric Mixture Properties at N Design for Leveling Mixture.
% Air Voids Versus Asphalt Contenet

9
8
7
% Air Voids
6
5
4
3
2
1
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Ps = 3.9 % % Asphalt Binder Content
% VMA Versus Asphalt Conent

21
20
19
% V.M.A
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
68
85
80
75
% V.F.A
70
65
60
55
50
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Figure (3-8) Volumetric Mixture Properties at N Design for Base Mixture.

The same procedure in the determination of optimum asphalt binder content
of (40-50) penetration grade in the three mixtures was followed to determine the
optimum in (60-70) penetration grade.
3.6 Specimens Testing:

Pneumatic repeated load system device was used to test the specimens Figure
(3-9). LVDT (Linear Variable Differential Transformer Displacement Transducer)
was used to measure the vertical displacement occurred in the specimen during the
uniaxial compressive repeated loading test; before using the LVDT device,
calibration process should be done at various temperatures (i.e. 40, 45, 55, 60, 65
and room temperature 35) oC, calibration factor was 4.743 (see the appendix for the
calibration factor calculations). The rate of loading was 0.1 sec. loading time and
0.9 sec. rest period. The displacement was recording from the LVDT at the
following load repetition: 1, 10, 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000,
7000, 8000, 9000 and 10000 or until the specimen fails. In this research, testing
parameters were:
1. Testing Temperature: four temperatures were used in this research; (25, 40,
55 and 65) oC.
69
2. Asphalt Binder Content: three asphalt binder content were used; the
optimum asphalt content, the optimum asphalt content – 0.5 and the
optimum asphalt content + 1.0 for each mixture.
3. Stress Level: two stress levels were used; 6.5 psi and 13 psi.
4. Asphalt Binder Viscosity: two asphalt binder viscosities were used; 0.496
and 0.35.
The Permanent strain calculated according to the following equation:
𝑝𝑝𝑑𝑑
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 =
ℎ
Where:
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = axial permanent strain.
𝑝𝑝𝑑𝑑 = axial permanent deformation in mm.
ℎ = the height of the specimen in mm.
Figure (3-10) shows the three mixtures samples after testing and failure. The total
specimen data are presented in the appendix.
(a)
Pneumatic
Repeated
Load
System
Device
70
(b)
A
specimen
inside the
device
with
LVDT
Figure (3-9) Pneumatic Repeated Load System Device.
a. Wearing b. Leveling c. Base

Figure (3-10) Wearing , Leveling and Base Specimens After Testing.
71
3.7 Analysis of Test Results:
For each asphalt mix, the number of load repetitions (N) were plotted against
the plastic strain in log-log scale to show the effect of each variable on the
determination of the plastic strain; Figure (3-11) represents the number of load
repetition and the plastic strain in log-log scale for (40-50) penetration grade, at 40
o
C, 13 psi stress level and 4.6% asphalt content for wearing mixture. Four variables
were tested: temperature, stress, asphalt binder content and viscosity.
100000
10000
Plastic Strain ×10-6
1000
100
10
1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Number of Load Repetition
Figure (3-11) The Plastic Strain Versus the Number of Load Repetition.
3.7.1 Effect of Temperature:

Mean value of strain for each mixture was calculated and presented in Table
(3-15). These means were shown graphically in Figure (3-12) to show the effect of
temperature.
Table (3-15) Mean Values of Permanent Strain × 10-6 in Each Asphalt
Concrete Mixture.
Wearing Leveling Base

Temperature, oC
Mixture Mixture Mixture
72
65 25154.260 26192.700 27111.430
55 22555.828 23650.293 24688.275
40 14505.355 15412.377 16387.836
25 8769.863 9495.057 10243.678
Increasing in temperature from 25 oC to 40 oC will increase in permanent

strain by 65.400%, 62.320% and 59.979% for wearing, leveling and base mixtures
respectively. Also, increasing in temperature from 40 oC to 55 oC will increase in
permanent strain by a factor of 55.500%, 53.450% and 50.650% for wearing,
leveling and base mixtures respectively. Furthermore, increasing in temperature
from 55 oC to 65 oC will increase in permanent strain by 11.520%, 10.750% and
9.815% for wearing, leveling and base mixtures respectively. Table (3-16) shows
these factors for the three mixtures.
Table (3-16) Percentage Factors of Permanent Strain in the Three Mixtures.
Increasing Factor
Temperature Increase, oC
in Permanent Strain %
Wearing Leveling Base
From To
25 40 65.400 62.320 59.979
40 55 55.500 53.450 50.650
55 65 11.520 10.750 9.815
73
Wearing Layer
30000
Permanent Micro-Strain
20000
10000
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Temperature, C
Leveling Layer
30000
20000
10000
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Temperature, C
74
Base Layer
30000
20000
10000
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Temperature, C
Figure (3-12) Effect of Temperature on Permanent Strain in Each Asphalt

Concrete Mixture.
3.7.2 Effect of Stress Level:
Two stress levels were used in this research (6.5 and 13) psi. Table (3-17)
shows the mean values of the permanent strain for the two stresses in each mixture.
Increasing in stress level from (6.5 to 13) psi will increase the permanent strain by
27.632%, 22.236% and 8.967% for wearing, leveling and base mixtures
respectively. Table (3-18) shows the summary of these results. Figure (3-13) shows
the effect of stress level on permanent strain.

Concrete Mixture.
Stress Level, psi Wearing Leveling Base

6.5 6142.552 6770.728 7605.633
13 7839.905 8276.286 8287.680
Stress Level, psi. Increasing Factor
75
in Permanent Strain %
From To Wearing Leveling Base
6.5 13 27.632 22.236 8.967
Wearing Mixture
8000
Permanent Strain ×10-6
7500
7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Stress Level, psi.
76
Leveling Mixture
8500

8000
7500
7000
6500
6000
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Stress Level, psi.
Base Mixture
9000
8500
8000
7500
7000
6500
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Stress Level, psi.
Figure (3-13) Effect of Stress Level on Permanent Strain in Each Asphalt

Concrete Mixture.
3.7.3 Effect of Asphalt Binder Content:
Three values of asphalt content used in this research: optimum asphalt
content -0.5, optimum asphalt content and optimum asphalt content + 1.0. Table (3-
19) shows mean values of permanent strain for the three contents in each asphalt
concrete mixture. Increasing in asphalt content from (optimum - 0.5) to (optimum)
will increase in permanent strain by 2.278 %, 1.629% and 1.079% in wearing,
leveling and base mixture respectively. Also the increase in asphalt content from
(optimum) to (optimum + 1.0) will increase in permanent strain by 6.557%,
3.255% and 1.602% for wearing, leveling and base mixture respectively. Table (3-
77
20) presents the summary of these factors. Figure (3-14) shows the effect of asphalt
binder content on permanent strain.

Concrete Mixture.
Asphalt Content, % Wearing Leveling Base

Optimum – 0.5 6682.970 7337.581 7860.950
Optimum 6835.249 7459.101 7945.780
Optimum + 1.0 7283.438 7701.918 8073.060
Asphalt Content, % Increasing Factor in Permanent Strain %

Optimum – 0.5 Optimum 2.278 1.629 1.079
Optimum Optimum +1.0 6.557 3.255 1.602
Wearing Mixture
7400
7200
7000
6800
6600
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
% Asphalt Binder Content, AC
78
Leveling Mixture
7800

7700
7600
7500
7400
7300
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Base Layer
8100
Permanent Strain×10-6
8000
7900
7800
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Figure (3-14) Effect of Asphalt Binder Content on Permanent Strain in Each

Asphalt Concrete Mixture.
3.7.4 Effect of Penetration Grade:

Two penetration grades of asphalt binder were used in this research: (40-50)
and (60-70). The change of penetration grade from (40-50) to (60-70) will increase
the permanent strain by 77.261%, 65.164% and 53.137% for wearing, leveling and
base mixture respectively. Mean values of permanent strain in each asphalt
concrete mixture are presented in Table (3-21) and the percentage factors of
increase in strain in the three mixtures are presented in Table (3-22). Figure (3-15)
presents the effect of penetration grade on permanent strain.
79
Concrete Mixture.
Penetration Grade Wearing Leveling Base

(40-50) 5058.85 5630.084 6273.75
(60-70) 8967.375 9298.878 9607.453
Penetration Grade Increasing Factor in Permanent Strain %

(40-50) (60-70) 77.261 65.164 53.137
Wearing Mixture
10000
8000
6000
4000 (40-50)
PG70-16
2000 PG64-16
(60-70)
0
PG70-16
(40-50) (60-70)
Penetration Grade
80
Leveling Mixture
10000

8000
6000
4000 (40-50)
PG70-16
PG64-16
(60-70)
2000
0
(40-50) (60-70)
PG70-16
Penetration Grade
Base Mixture
12000
10000
8000
6000
(40-50)
PG70-16
4000
PG64-16
(60-70)
2000
0
PG70-16
(40-50) (60-70)
Penetration Grade
Figure (3-15) Effect of Penetration Grade on Permanent Strain.

3.8 Influence of Temperature, Stress Level, Penetration Grade
and Asphalt Content on Permanent Strain:
The results and analysis of laboratory work data indicate
that the permanent strain is highly dependent on temperature
followed by the stress level while it is moderately dependent on
penetration grade and has low dependency on asphalt content in
the three mixtures as presented in Table (3-23). Figure (3-16)
81
through (3-19) describe the trends of observed data presented in
the preceding sections.
Table (3-23) Influence of Temperature, Stress Level, Penetration Grade and

Asphalt Content on Plastic Strain for Different Mixtures Within the
Limitations of Data Variables.
Permanent Strain, ε p
Predictor Variable Wearing Leveling Base
Temperature Very high Very high Very high
Stress Level High High High
Penetration Grade Moderate Moderate Moderate
Asphalt Content Low Low Low
82
Wearing Mixture
100000

10000
1000
65 C
100 55 C
10 40 C
25 C
1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Leveling Mixture
100000
10000
1000
65 C
100 55 C
40 C
10
25 C
1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Base Mixture
100000
10000
1000
65 C
100 55 C
40 C
10
25 C
1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Figure (3-16) Influence of Temperature on Permanent Strain.
83
Wearing Mixture
100000

10000
1000
100 13 psi
6.5 psi
10
1
1 10 100 1000
Leveling Mixture
100000
10000
1000
100 13 psi
10 6.5 psi
1
1 10 100 1000
Base Mixture
100000
10000
1000
100 13 psi
6.5 psi
10
1
1 10 100 1000
Figure (3-17) Influence of Stress Level on Permanent Strain.

84
Wearing Mixture
100000

10000
1000
100 (40-50)
PG70-16
PG64-16
(60-70)
10
1
1 10 100 1000
Leveling Mixture
100000
10000
1000
100 (40-50)
PG70-16
(60-70)
PG64-16
10
1
1 10 100 1000
Base Mixture
100000
10000
1000
100 PG70-16
(40-50)
10 PG64-16
(60-70)
1
1 10 100 1000
Figure (3-18) Influence of Penetration Grade on Permanent Strain.
85
Wearing Mixture
100000

10000
1000
% AC = 4.1
100
% AC = 4.6
10
% AC = 5.6
1
1 10 100 1000
Leveling Mixture
100000
10000
1000
% AC = 4.1
100
% AC = 4.6
10 % AC = 5.6
1
1 10 100 1000
Base Mixture
100000
10000
1000
% AC = 4.1
100
% AC = 4.6
10 % AC = 5.6
1
1 10 100 1000
Figure (3-19) Influence of Asphalt Binder Content on Permanent Strain.

86
CHAPTER FOUR
STATISTICAL AND ANN MODELS FOR PREDICTION OF
PERMANENT DEFORMATION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the statistical analysis used in the development of the
permanent deformation model for wearing course, leveling course and base course.
Two approaches were used in this analysis; the first one is the regression analysis
approach whereas the second one is the artificial neural network analysis approach.
SPSS program version 19 was used in the regression analysis and NUEFRAM
version 4.0 for artificial neural network analysis. A comparison between the two
approaches in the development of the three models was made and presented in this
chapter.
4.2 Regression Analysis Approach
Regression analysis is a statistical technique that attempts to explore and

model the relationship between two or more variables. Equation (4-1) represents
the dependent variable, y i , as a linear function of one independent variable, x i ,
subject to a random ‘disturbance’ or ‘error’, u i :
𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 = 𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 + 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 (4-1)
Where:
y i = the dependent variable, 𝛽𝛽0 = constant, 𝛽𝛽1 = the slope, and x i = the independent
variable.
The error term u i is assumed to have a mean value of zero, a constant variance, and
it will be uncorrelated with itself across observations.
87
Multiple linear regression makes certain assumptions about the data:
1. Linearity, the model assumes that the relationship between the dependent
variable and the independent variables can be well-estimated by a straight line.
2. Normality of residuals, residuals refers to the distances between the line and the
points. Multiple linear regression assumes that these distances are normally
distributed with a mean of 0.
3. Homogeneity and independence of residuals, the residuals should be normally

distributed with equal variance (that’s called homogeneity) and they must not
related to the independent variables.
4.2.1 Dependent and Independent Variables of the Developed Models:

The following variables represent the dependant and independent variables.
The first one is the dependant variable whereas the rest are the independent
variables:
1. ε p /ε r = ratio of permanent plastic strain at any (N) number of load repetition
to resilient strain at 200th load repetition.
2. N = number of load repetition.
3. T = test temperature (oC).
4. 𝜎𝜎 = stress level (psi).
5. 𝜂𝜂 = viscosity at 135 oC (Pa.s).
6. A v = air void of asphalt mixture (%).
7. P s = asphalt content (%) by weight of total mix, and
8. P seff = effective asphalt content (%) by weight of total mix.
4.2.2 Testing of Normality:
Kolmogorov-Smirnov or (K-S) test was used to check if the variables are
normally distributed, because this test provides more refined analysis of the data,
88
treats individual observations directly and assumes continuity of the degree of
freedom (Rohatgi, 2006). (Scheaffer and McClave, 1990) stated that the K-S
statistics D is based upon the maximum distance between F(y) and Fn (y):
𝐷𝐷 = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀|𝐹𝐹(𝑦𝑦) − 𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛 (𝑦𝑦)| (4-2)
F(y) = Normal cumulative probabilities. (From normal distribution table).
Fn (y) = Sample cumulative distribution function.
𝑖𝑖
𝐷𝐷+ = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 � − 𝐹𝐹(𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 )� (4-3)
𝑛𝑛
And
𝑖𝑖−1
𝐷𝐷− = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 �𝐹𝐹(𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 ) − � (4-4)
𝑛𝑛
Since
𝐷𝐷 = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀(𝐷𝐷+, 𝐷𝐷− ) (4-5)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results for the dependent predicted models are
tabulated in the Table (4-1). The results have indicated that K-S calculated values
are less than the critical values presented by (Scheaffer and McClave, 1990).
Accordingly the distributions of models are normal.
Table (4-1) D-Value and K-S Test Results.
Model Residual Absolute K-S

Course D+ D-
No. value D (D n,0.05)
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
1 Wearing log 0.074 -0.157 0.157 3.307
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
2 Leveling log 0.085 -0.153 0.153 3.319
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
3 Base log 0.099 -0.170 0.170 3.203
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
4.2.3 Multicollinearty:
Multicollinearity (collinearity and intercorrelation) is a statistical procedure
to find the correlation between independent variables with one another. The
89
adverse effect of multicollinearity is that the estimated regression coefficients tend
to have large sampling variability, SPSS software version (19) is employed for the
development of the models. A confidence level of 95 percent, thus a significant
level of 0.05, is employed. Based on the intercorrelation analysis the independent
variables are eliminated one-by-one depending on significance. The process is
repeated until significant predictor variable remained, at that point interactions
among the variables are considered. A correlation matrix is produced to determine
the correlation coefficients for the variables. The decision to add or delete a
variable is made on the basis of weather that variable improves the model or not.
By using SPSS software the correlation coefficients between all of the variables are
calculated and the correlation matrix is setup. Tables (4-2), (4-3) and (4-4) show
the bivariate correlation coefficients and determined to identify the underlying form
of the relationship between the dependent variable and each of the predictor
variables for, wearing, leveling and base course respectively.
Table (4-2) Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Wearing Course Model.
Pearson Correlations, N = 230

𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
Variable N T Ps 𝜼𝜼 𝝈𝝈 Av P seff
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
N 1.000 -.413 -.038 .080 -.041 .037 -.038 .937
T -.413 1.000 -.001 -.029 -.067 -.019 -.001 -.149
Ps -.038 -.001 1.000 -.044 .026 -.840 1.000 .027
𝜼𝜼 .080 -.029 -.044 1.000 .158 .224 -.044 .115
𝝈𝝈 -.041 -.067 .026 .158 1.000 .059 .026 .039
Av .037 -.019 -.840 .224 .059 1.000 -.840 -.060
P seff -.038 -.001 1.000 -.044 .026 -.840 1.000 .027
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
.937 -.149 .027 .115 .039 -.060 .027 1.000
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
90
Table (4-3) Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Leveling Course Model.

𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
N 1.000 -.370 -.048 .058 -.041 .065 -.048 .946
T -.370 1.000 .068 -.060 -.104 -.127 .068 -.079
Ps -.048 .068 1.000 .017 .011 -.928 1.000 .052
𝜼𝜼 .058 -.060 .017 1.000 .055 .017 .017 .094
𝝈𝝈 -.041 -.104 .011 .055 1.000 .012 .011 .038
Av .065 -.127 -.927 .017 .012 1.000 -.927 -.027
P seff -.048 .068 1.000 .017 .011 -.927 1.000 .052
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
.946 -.079 .052 .094 .038 -.027 .052 1.000
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
Table (4-4) Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Base Course Model.

𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
N 1.000 -.495 .002 .000 -.031 .175 .002 .950
T -.495 1.000 .037 .069 .063 -.426 .037 -.334
Ps .002 .037 1.000 .025 -.035 -.652 1.000 .036
𝜼𝜼 .000 .069 .025 1.000 .079 .122 .025 .061
𝝈𝝈 -.031 .063 -.035 .079 1.000 -.116 -.035 .081
Av .175 -.426 -.652 .122 -.116 1.000 -.652 -.091
P seff .002 .037 1.000 .025 -.035 -.652 1.000 .036
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
.950 -.334 .036 .061 .081 -.091 .036 1.000
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
91
The correlation coefficient matrixes for wearing, leveling and base courses
variables show high correlation between the percent of air voids and the percent of
effective asphalt content, thus the percent of air voids will be omitted. Also, high
correlation between the percent of effective asphalt content and the percent of
asphalt content; therefore the percent of asphalt content will be taken to build the
three models.
4.2.4 Number of Samples

In order to build the three asphalt concrete courses models; the number of
samples for each model must be check. Table (4-5) represents descriptive statistics
for wearing course number of samples (N = 300, N = 350 and N = 444).
Table (4-5) Descriptive Statistics for Wearing Course No. of Samples
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

300 -1.940 1.258 -0.052 0.869 0.755
350 -1.940 1.258 -0.031 0.866 0.750
444 -1.952 1.258 -0.020 0.833 0.695
Table (4-6) represents t-test results for wearing course number of samples.
Table (4-6) T-Test Results for Wearing Course No. of Samples
95% confidence
Pair of Mean interval of the
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference
Samples Difference
Lower Upper
300 and
-4.076 1 0.153 -0.041 -0.172 0.088
350
300, 350
-3.759 2 0.064 -0.034 -0.074 0.005
and 444
92
From Table (4-6) the t-test results show that using 300 number of samples or
350 don’t make any difference because significant 2-tailed is greater than 0.05
confidence level. The results also show that using 444 number of samples or 350 or
300 don’t make any difference because significant 2-tailed is greater than 0.05
confidence level. This means that using any number of samples is representative.
F – test was used to determine whether the pair of samples ((300 and 350) or
(300 and 444) or (350 and 444) ) have different variances. Table (4-7) shows the F
– Test results.
Table (4-7) F-Test Results for Wearing Course No. of Samples
Pair of
F Calculated F Tabulated
Samples
300 and 350 0.952 1.000
300 and 444 0.429 1.000
350 and 444 0.447 1.000
From Table (4-7) F calculated is less than F tabulated in all pairs. Thus, the
null hypothesis that the two standard deviations for all pairs are equal is accepted,
and there is 95% confidence that any difference in the sample standard deviations is
due to random error.
T-test and F-test used to check the number of samples in leveling and base
courses models. Tables (4-8) and (4-11) show the descriptive statistics for leveling
and base courses respectively whereas Tables (4-9) and (4-12) show the T-test
results for the two courses number of samples. Tables (4-10) and (4-13) show the
F-test results for the two courses.
93
Table (4-8) Descriptive Statistics for Leveling Course No. of Samples

300 -1.98 1.260 -0.019 0.870 0.758
400 -1.98 1.260 0.070 0.873 0.764
469 -2.063 1.264 0.045 0.848 0.720
Table (4-9) T-Test Results for Leveling Course No. of Samples
95% confidence
Mean interval of the
N t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Difference Difference
Lower Upper
300 and
0.566 1 0.672 0.025 -0.542 0.593
400
300, 400
1.203 2 0.352 0.032 -0.082 0.146
and 469
Table (4-10) F-Test Results for Leveling Course No. of Samples
No. of Samples F Calculated F Tabulated

300 and 400 0.947 1.000
300 and 469 0.619 1.000
400 and 469 0.539 1.000
T-test table results for leveling course number of samples show that the
significant 2-tailed is greater than 0.05 thus using any number of samples do not
make any difference. In addition, F-test table results show that F calculated is less
94
than F tabulated, thus the null hypothesis is accepted and any number of samples
could be representative.
Table (4-11) Descriptive Statistics for Base Course No. of Samples

100 -2.020 1.460 -0.234 1.047 1.097
200 -2.090 1.460 -0.104 0.946 0.896
357 -2.157 1.459 -0.072 0.931 0.868
Table (4-12) T-Test Results for Base Course No. of Samples
95% confidence
Mean interval of the
N t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Difference Difference
Lower Upper
100 and
-2.613 1 0.233 -0.169 -0.994 0.655
200
100, 200
-2.766 2 0.110 -0.137 -0.350 0.076
and 357
Table (4-13) F-Test Results for Base Course No. of Samples
No. of Samples F Calculated F Tabulated

100 and 200 0.232 1.000
100 and 357 0.128 1.000
200 and 357 0.788 1.000
95
For base course number of samples the T-test results show that the
significant 2-tailed is greater than 0.05 then using any number of samples do not
make any difference. F-test results show that F calculated is less than F tabulated
for all pairs this means that the hypothesis of null is accepted and any number of
samples could be representative.
4.2.5 Regression Modeling

The process of modeling consists of three main parts: variable response,
mathematical function, and random errors. The mathematical function describes the
deterministic variation in the response variable and it is called the regression
function, or regression equation.
Multiple linear regression is employed to build the three models because it is a
function of more than one predictor variable. The main objective of multiple linear
regressions is to develop the best model at selected confidence level and satisfying
the basic assumptions of regression analysis. The objective is accomplished by
selecting 50% of the laboratory data to build the models and the rest 50% of the
data for validation.
4.2.6 Models Limitations

The limitations of the data used to build the three models are presented in
Tables (4-14) through (4-16).
96
Table (4-14) Data Limitations Used in Wearing Model.
Building Model Data, Sample Size = 230
Variable Range Min. Max. Mean
N 9999 1.000 10000 2924.153
T 40 25 65 40.581
Ps 1.5 4.1 5.6 4.783
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.425
𝝈𝝈 6.5 6.5 13 9.610
ε p /ε r 18.102 0.011 18.113 2.823
Validation Data, Sample Size = 214
N 9999 1.000 10000 2685.192
T 40 25 65 39.439
Ps 1.5 4.1 5.6 4.754
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.426
𝝈𝝈 6.5 6.5 13 9.446
ε p /ε r 17.247 0.011 17.258 2.689
Table (4-15) Data Limitations Used in Leveling Model.

N 9999 1.000 10000 2942.564
T 40 25 65 41.016
Ps 1.5 3.7 5.2 4.339
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.423
𝝈𝝈 6.5 6.5 13 9.887
ε p /ε r 18.357 0.008 18.365 3.341
N 9999 1 10000 3098.210
T 40 25 65 39.291
Ps 1.5 3.7 5.2 4.399
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.420
𝝈𝝈 6.5 6.5 13 9.429
ε p /ε r 17.569 0.010 17.579 3.222
97
Table (4-16) Data Limitations Used in Base Model.

N 9999 1.000 10000 2024.571
T 40 25 65 39.153
Ps 1.5 3.4 4.9 4.074
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.421
𝝈𝝈 6.5 6.5 13 9.698
ε p /ε r 25.756 0.007 25.763 2.898
N 9999 1 10000 2307.643
T 40 25 65 38.809
Ps 1.5 3.4 4.9 4.057
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.426
𝝈𝝈 6.5 6.5 13 9.401
ε p /ε r 28.767 0.006 28.773 2.994
4.2.7 Goodness of Fit

The measures of goodness of fit are aimed to quantify how well the proposed
regression model obtained fit the data. The two measures that are usually presented
are coefficient of determination (R2) and standard error of regression (SER)
(Devore, 2000). For more accuracy several statisticians use the adjusted coefficient
of multiple determinations, adjusted R2 which refers to magnitude increasing of R2
when new parameter inter the model. The second parameter SER estimated by the
following equation:
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 0.5
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = � (𝑘𝑘+1)
� (4-6)
𝑛𝑛−
Where
SSE (Sum Squares of Error) = ∑(𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 − 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖′ )2 .
𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 = actual value of response variable for the ith case.
𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖′ = value of the regression prediction for the ith case.
n - (k + 1) = degree of freedom (D f ).
98
n = number of sample, and
k = number of independent variables.
The results of ANOVA and summary of the regression for the models are
presented in Tables (4-17) through Table (4-19) also the developed models can be
seen in Tables (4-20) through Table (4-22).
Table (4-17) Results of ANOVA for Wearing Course Model.
Sum of Mean
Model Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 132.704 5 26.541 1121.496 0.0
1 Residual 5.301 224 .024
Total 138.005 229
Table (4-18) Results of ANOVA for Leveling Course Model.
Sum of Mean
Model Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 166.584 5 33.317 1156.485 0.0
1 Residual 6.626 230 .029
Total 173.210 235
Table (4-19) Results of ANOVA for Base Course Model.
Sum of Mean
Model Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 156.120 5 31.224 563.242 0.0
1 Residual 10.145 183 .055
Total 166.265 188
99
From ANOVA table results, the F statistic is the regression mean square
(MSR) divided by the residual mean square (MSE). The significance value of F
statistic is smaller than 0.05 for the three models then the independent variables do
a good job explaining the variation in the dependent variable.
Table (4-20) Regression Developed Model for Wearing Course.

Estimated 95 % Confidence
Parameter Sig. Interval
Model t SER
(P-value) Lower Upper
𝐁𝐁
Bound Bound
𝛼𝛼 -5.127 -25.512 0.0 -5.523 -4.731
Log N .684 73.484 0.0 .757 .702
Log T 1.463 20.641 0.0 4.371 1.602
.153
Log P s .917 5.080 0.0 .108 1.273
1
Log 𝜂𝜂 .266 1.947 0.0 -2.205 .536
Log 𝜎𝜎 .494 7.181 0.0 .928 .629
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝
= 10−5.127 × 𝑇𝑇 1.463 × 𝑁𝑁 0.684 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 0.917 × 𝜂𝜂0.266 × 𝜎𝜎 0.494
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟
R = 0.981, R2 = 0.962, Adjusted R2= 0.961
Table (4-21) Regression Developed Model for Leveling Course.
Model t SER
B
Bound Bound
𝛼𝛼 -4.880 -24.500 0.0 -5.273 -4.488
Log N .691 75.340 0.0 .673 .709
Log T 1.409 18.607 0.0 1.259 1.558
.169
Log P s .960 5.294 0.0 .602 1.317
1
Log 𝜂𝜂 .513 3.490 0.0 .223 .802
Log 𝜎𝜎 .437 5.909 0.0 .292 .583
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝
= 10−4.880 × 𝑇𝑇 1.409 × 𝑁𝑁 0.691 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 0.960 × 𝜂𝜂0.513 × 𝜎𝜎 0.437
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟
R = 0.981, R2 = 0.962, Adjusted R2= 0.961
100
Table (4-22) Regression Developed Model for Base Course.
Model t SER
𝐁𝐁
Bound Bound
𝛼𝛼 -3.989 -13.421 0.0 -4.576 -3.403
Log N .745 49.240 0.0 .715 .775
Log T .945 7.963 0.0 .711 1.179
.235
Log P s .421 1.611 0.0 -.095 .937
1
Log 𝜂𝜂 .502 2.197 0.0 .051 .952
Log 𝜎𝜎 .623 5.442 0.0 .397 .849
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝
= 10−3.989 × 𝑇𝑇 .945 × 𝑁𝑁 0.745 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 0.421 × 𝜂𝜂0.502 × 𝜎𝜎 0.623
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟
R = 0.969, R2 = 0.939, Adjusted R2= 0.937
4.2.8 Developed Models Validation

The objective of the process of validation is to assess the adequacy of the
proposed prediction models, and measure the error or accuracy of the prediction for
the validation period.
Excel software was used to validate the three asphalt pavement course
models (wearing, leveling and base). The actual split 50% data which has not been
used in the building of the models was used in the validation process. Figures (4-1)
through Figure (4-3) explain the relationship between the actual versus estimated
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
(developed) ( ) ratio; and as presented in the figures the correlation coefficient (R)
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
value is 0.983 for wearing course, 0.980 for leveling course and 0.970 for base
course, thus the developed models is considered to be valid.
101
R2 = 0.967
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑 /𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
Figure (4-1) Actual Versus Estimated Log ε p /ε r for Wearing Course.
R2 = 0.961
Figure (4-2) Actual Versus Estimated Log ε p /ε r for Leveling Course.
102
R2 = 0.941
Figure (4-3) Actual Versus Estimated Log ε p /ε r for Base Course.
4.2.9 Distribution of Error

The test of Kolmogorov-Smirnov has been achieved to exam the distribution
of error, the data is presented in Table (4-23). Figures (4-4) through (4-9) show the
histogram and scatter plots depicted distribution of error for wearing, leveling and
base course models respectively. It can be noticed that distribution of errors are
normal for the three models.
Table (4-23) D-Value and K-S Results for Error.

Mixture D+ D-
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
1 Wearing log 0.078 -0.149 0.149 2.258
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
2 Leveling log 0.084 -0.148 0.148 2.271
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
3 Base log 0.099 -0.177 0.177 2.435
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
103
4.2.10 Distribution of Mean Error:
For the developed models, mean values of error distribution are calculated
and it is found that the means of error distribution are equal to zero for all models
wearing, leveling and base course asphalt pavements.
Figure (4-4) Histogram Residual for Wearing Course Model.
104
Figure (4-5) Scatter Plot for Wearing Course Model.
Figure (4-6) Histogram Residual for Leveling Course Model.
105
Figure (4-7) Scatter Plot for Leveling Course Model.
Figure (4-8) Histogram Residual for Base Course Model.

106
Figure (4-9) Scatter Plot for Base Course Model.
4.2.11 Discussion of Regression Results Analysis
Multiple regression analysis used to know the effect of the independent
variables (number of load repetition, temperature, asphalt content, viscosity and
stress level) on the dependant variable ε p /ε r .
From SPSS program the model of wearing course was predicted and the
model description was as follows:
Table (4-24) Coefficients of Wearing Course Model.
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
𝛼𝛼 -5.127 .201 -25.512 0.0
Log N .684 .009 1.065 73.484 0.0
Log T 1.463 .071 .298 20.641 0.0
1
Log P s .917 .181 .067 5.080 0.0
Log 𝜂𝜂 .266 .137 .026 1.947 0.0
Log 𝜎𝜎 .494 .069 .096 7.181 0.0
107
It is obvious from the values of standardized coefficient (Beta), the first
independent variable number of load repetition is highly affected in the prediction
of the dependent variable (ε p /ε r ) because the value of Beta is the highest one
(1.065). The second independent variable is the temperature; Beta value is (0.298).
Beta value for the stress variable is (0.096) and its rank is the third. The fourth
variable is the asphalt content; beta value is (0.067). The last independent variable
which has the lowest effect in the prediction of the (ε p /ε r ) is the viscosity, its Beta
value is (0.026). As presented in Table (4-24) all of the independent variables have
a significant level less than 0.05.
The following table represents the coefficients of leveling course model.
Table (4-25) Coefficients of Leveling Course Model.
B Std. Error Beta
𝛼𝛼 -4.880 .199 -24.500 0.0
Log N .691 .009 1.027 75.340 0.0
Log T 1.409 .076 .255 18.607 0.0
1
Log P s .960 .181 .068 5.294 0.0
Log 𝜂𝜂 .513 .147 .045 3.490 0.0
Log 𝜎𝜎 .437 .074 .077 5.909 0.0
As in the discussion of wearing course model, the arrangement of the

independent variables that have effect on predicting the dependent variable ε p /ε r in
leveling course model are the number of load repetition, the temperature, the stress
level, the asphalt content and the viscosity which have Beta values of 1.027, 0.255,
0.077, 0.068 and 0.045 respectively and have a significant level less than 0.05.
Whereas the arrangement of Beta values of the base course model Table (4-26) are
1.036, 0.168, 0.100, 0.040 and 0.029 which are the standardized coefficients of the
number of load repetition, the temperature, the stress level, the viscosity and the
108
asphalt content respectively and all of them have a significant level less than 0.05
as presented in the Table (4-26).
Table (4-26) Coefficients of Base Course Model.
B Std. Error Beta
𝛼𝛼 -3.989 .297 -13.421 0.0
Log N .745 .015 1.033 49.240 0.0
Log T .945 .119 .767 7.963 0.0
1
Log P s .421 .261 .003 1.611 0.0
Log 𝜂𝜂 .502 .228 -.144 2.197 0.0
Log 𝜎𝜎 .623 .114 .153 5.442 0.0
The analysis of results and calculation of correlation coefficient, coefficient

of determination and regression standard error for the models of wearing, leveling
and base asphalt pavement courses are calculated and presented in Table (4-27)
below with the final expression of the three models.
Table (4-27) Summary Results of Predicted Models.
Course Model R R2 SER

𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝
Wearing = 10−5.127 × 𝑇𝑇 1.463 × 𝑁𝑁 0.684 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 0.917 × 𝜂𝜂0.266 × 𝜎𝜎 0.494 .981 .962 .153
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝
Leveling = 10−4.880 × 𝑇𝑇 1.409 × 𝑁𝑁 0.691 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 0.960 × 𝜂𝜂0.513 × 𝜎𝜎 0.437 .981 .962 .169
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝
Base = 10−3.989 × 𝑇𝑇 .945 × 𝑁𝑁 0.745 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 0.421 × 𝜂𝜂0.502 × 𝜎𝜎 0.623 .969 .939 .235
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟
The coefficient of determination (R2) for the wearing, leveling and base
course is 0.962, 0.962 and 0.939 respectively. This means there are only 3.8, 3.8
109
and 6.1 percent of observed variation is unexplained by the developed models. This
leads to a very good correlation between the actual and estimated values of ε p /ε r .
The three models of the three layers (wearing, leveling and base) show that
the ratio of ε p /ε r are increasing with the increase of the number of load repetition,
the temperature, the asphalt content, the stress level and the viscosity.
4.3 Artificial Neural Network Approach:

The NEUFRAME program version 4.0 was used to predict the strain ratio
ε p /ε r for wearing, leveling, base course models, in which optimal network
architecture is determined by trial and error. The methodology incorporates three
main phases:
1. Conceptual analysis.
2. Neural network design, and
3. Neural network modeling and implementation.
4.3.1 Conceptual Analysis:
In this stage, a Neural Network paradigm has to be selected as a suitable
environment for developing and estimating the strain ratio and has been identified
as feed-forward pattern-recognition type (Back Propagation) to suit the desired
interpolative and predictive performance of the model.
4.3.2 Neural Network Design:

The design process consists of: problem analysis and problem structuring.
The problem analysis is the identification of the independent factor(s) that fully
describe the problem and expected to be easily obtainable for training the network
at the next stage. In this research, five major factors affecting the estimation of the
strain ratio ε p /ε r : number of load repetition, temperature, asphalt content, viscosity
and stress level.
110
The problem structuring entails the arrangement and representation of the
descriptive factors and their associated results in the form of inputs and outputs, as
required by the neural network modeling. With the five inputs readily identified,
the output describing the strain ratio ε p /ε r can be modeled for the wearing, leveling
and base asphalt pavement mixtures.
4.3.3 Neural Network Implementation

All of the laboratory data of the three asphalt pavement mixtures were used
in the development of the neural network models. The data were also used to
calibrate and validate the developed models for each mixture.
The components of the NEUFRAME program are presented in Figure (4-
10) which is built to determine the relationship between the independent variables
(input) and the dependent variable (output). The program is an intelligent
technology tool that include neural network logic that allow putting the power of
neural nets to work straight out of the box.
Figure (4-10) Components of NEUFRAME 4 Program
111
4.3.4 Model Inputs and Outputs:
There are five input independent variables that have the most significant
impact on the prediction of the strain ratio ε p /ε r . The independent variables are:
number of load repetition, temperature, asphalt content, viscosity and stress level.
Whereas the output dependent variable is the ratio of plastic strain to resilient strain
ε p /ε r .
4.3.5 Model No.1: Prediction of Wearing Course Model:
4.3.5.1 Pre-Processing and Data Division:

The processing of the data is very important in using neural nets
successfully. It determines what information are presented to create the model
during the training phase. It can be in the form of data scaling, normalization and
transformation. Transforming the input data into some known forms (e.g. log.,
exponential, etc.) may be helpful to improve ANN performance. Thus, the
logarithm of the inputs and output variables is taken before introducing forward in
the next steps.
The next step in the development of ANN models is dividing the available
data randomly into three sets: training, testing and validation, as is standard
practice in the development of ANN models. Trial and error process was used to
select the best division. In the current study, the network that performs best with
respect to testing error was used and compared with other criteria to evaluate the
prediction performance, training error and correlation of validation set. Using the
default parameters of the software, a number of networks with different divisions
were developed and the results are summarized in Table (4-28) and shown
graphically in Figure (4-11) for ANN’s wearing course model.
112
Table (4-28) Effect of Data Division on Performance of Wearing Course Model
Correlation
Data Division % Error %
Coefficient
No. Training Testing Querying Training Testing R%
1 80 5 15 4.588 8.549 0.982
2 75 5 20 4.615 7.326 0.977
3 75 15 10 4.615 6.727 0.988
4 70 25 5 4.704 4.420 0.996
5 65 5 30 4.667 4.771 0.971
6 65 20 15 4.667 4.595 0.985
7 60 10 30 4.743 5.572 0.972
8 60 20 20 4.743 5.077 0.982
9 55 10 35 4.950 6.406 0.974
10 55 20 25 4.950 6.143 0.973
11 50 25 25 4.635 6.424 0.978
12 50 30 20 4.635 6.318 0.985
It is obvious from Figure (4-11) that the best division is 70% for training set,
25% for testing set and 5% for validation set, according to the lowest testing error
and the highest correlation coefficient (R%). Thus, data division No.4 will be
adopted in this model.
113
5.00
4.95
Training Error, %
4.90
4.85
4.80
4.75
4.70
4.65
4.60
4.55
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Data Division No.
10
9
Testing Error, %
8
7
6
5
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Data Division No.
1.00
Correlation Coefficient (R),
0.99
0.98
0.97
%
0.96
0.95
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Data Division No.
Figure (4-11) Effect of Data Division on the Performance of the Wearing

Course Model.
114
The effect of using different distribution of data (i.e. striped, blocked and
random) was investigated and shown in Table (4-29). It is unmistakable that the
better performance was obtained when the blocked choice was used.
Table (4-29) Effect of Data Distribution on ANN’s Performance Model.
Data Correlation
Data Division Error %
Distribu- Coefficient
Training Testing Querying tion Training Testing R%
70 25 5 Blocked 4.704 4.420 0.996
70 25 5 Striped 4.640 5.149 0.976
70 25 5 Random 4.569 8.863 0.407
4.3.5.2 Data Scaling:
Once the available data have been divided into their subsets, the input and
output variables are pre-processed by scaling them to eliminate their dimensions
and to ensure that all variables receive equal attention during training. Scaling has
to be commensurated with the limits of the transfer functions used in the hidden
and output layers (i.e. –1.0 to 1.0 for tanh transfer function and 0.0 to 1.0 for
sigmoid transfer function). The simple linear mapping of the variables’ extremes to
the neural network’s practical extremes is adopted for scaling, as it is the most
commonly used method, (Shahin, 2003). As part of this method, for each variable
x with minimum and maximum values of x min. and x max. , respectively, the scaled
value x n is calculated as follows:
𝑥𝑥− 𝑥𝑥 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 .
𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛 = (4-7)
𝑥𝑥 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 . − 𝑥𝑥 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 .
115
4.3.5.3 Model Architecture, Optimization and Stopping Criteria
One of the most important and difficult task in the development of ANN
models is determining the model architecture (i.e. the number and connectivity of
the hidden layer nodes). A network with one hidden layer can approximate any
continuous function, provided that sufficient connection weights are used, (Shahin,
2003).
In this research, one hidden layer was used. The general strategy adopted for
finding the optimal network architecture and internal parameters that control the
training process is as follows: a number of trials are carried out by using the default
parameters of the software used with one hidden layer and 1,2,3,…….,11 hidden
layer nodes. It should be noted that 11 is the upper limit for the number of hidden
layer nodes needed to map any continuous function for a network with 5 inputs,
(Caudill, 1988) and consequently, is used in this work.
The network that performs best with respect to the testing set is retrained
with different combinations of momentum terms, learning rates and transfer
functions in an attempt to improve model performance since the back-propagation
algorithm uses a first-order gradient descent technique to adjust the connection
weights, it may get trapped in a local minimum if the initial starting point in weight
space is unfavorable. Consequently, the model that has the optimum momentum
rate, learning rate and transfer function is retrained a number of times with different
initial weights until no further improvement occurs. Using the default parameters of
the software, a number of networks with different numbers of hidden layer nodes
are developed and the results are shown graphically in Figure (4-12) and
summarized in Table (4-30) for wearing course ANN model.
116
Table (4-30) Effect of Number of Nodes on Wearing Course ANN
Performance Model
Correlation
Node Error % Parameters Effect
Coefficient
No.
Training Testing R%
1 4.799 4.322 0.996
2 4.914 5.246 0.995 Data Distribution is Blocked
3 4.704 4.420 0.996 Learning Rate = 0.2
4 4.698 4.553 0.995 Momentum Rate = 0.8
5 4.710 4.699 0.996 Transfer Function in Hidden
6 4.757 6.670 0.995 Layer is Sigmoid
7 4.692 4.876 0.996 Transfer Function in Output
8 4.874 5.070 0.996 Layer is Sigmoid
9 4.738 4.712 0.996
10 4.720 4.985 0.996
11 4.769 6.107 0.996
It can be seen from Figure (4-12) that there is no difference in the coefficient
of correlation after seven nodes; therefore the process must be stopped at node
number seven where no significant improvement in the model performance was
found. The figure also shows that the network with one hidden node has the lowest
prediction error for the testing (4.322%) therefore one hidden node was chosen in
this model to be the optimal.
117
4.95
4.90
Training Error, %
4.85
4.80
4.75
4.70
4.65
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Node No.
7.00
6.50
6.00
Testing Error, %
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Node No.
0.998
Correlation Coefficient, R %
0.997
0.996
0.995
0.994
0.993
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Node No.
Figure (4-12) Performance of the Wearing Course ANN Model with Different
Hidden Nodes.
118
The effect of the internal parameters controlling the back-propagation (i.e.
momentum rate (M r ) and learning rate (L r )) on model performance is investigated
for the model with one hidden layer node. The effect of the learning rate on model
performance is presented in Table (4-31) and shown graphically in Figure (4-13).
Table (4-31) Effect of Learning Rate on ANN’s Performance Model.
Correlation
Learning Error %
Coefficient Parameters Effect
Rate
Training Testing R%
0.05 4.936 5.773 0.995
0.09 4.796 6.187 0.994
0.1 4.979 5.463 0.993 Data Distribution is Blocked
0.2 4.799 4.322 0.996 M r = 0.8
0.3 4.635 9.321 0.996 Node No. =1
0.4 4.389 17.497 0.994 Transfer Function in Hidden
0.5 4.315 16.766 0.996 Layer is Sigmoid
0.6 4.331 16.263 0.996 Transfer Function in Output
0.7 4.331 15.911 0.994 Layer is Sigmoid
0.8 4.200 15.638 0.995
0.9 4.107 15.383 0.996
0.99 4.061 15.135 0.996
Figure (4-13) shows that the testing error has the lowest value 4.322 at
learning rate 0.2 and the correlation coefficient is 0.996 thus the learning rate of 0.2
will be considered in this model.
119
6
Training Error, %
5
2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Learning Rate
18
15
Testing Error, %
12
3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Learning Rate
0.998
Correlation Coefficient, R
0.997
0.996
0.995
0.994
0.993
0.992
0.991
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Learning Rate
Figure (4-13) Effect of Various Learning Rate on the Wearing Course ANN
Model (M r = 0.8).
120
Moreover, the effect of the momentum rate on the model performance was
investigated at learning rate 0.2. The results are tabulated in Table (4-32) and
shown graphically in Figure (4-14).
Table (4-32) Effect of Momentum Rate on ANN’s Performance Model.
Correlation
Momentum Error %
Rate
Training Testing R%
0.1 4.978 5.523 0.994
0.2 4.947 5.572 0.994
Data Distribution is Blocked
0.3 4.974 5.442 0.994
L r = 0.2
0.4 5.007 6.077 0.994
Node No. =1
0.5 4.984 5.882 0.994
Transfer Function in Hidden
0.6 4.935 5.892 0.994
Layer is Sigmoid
0.7 4.869 5.987 0.995
Transfer Function in Output
0.8 4.799 4.322 0.996
Layer is Sigmoid
0.9 4.960 5.529 0.993
0.95 4.899 8.684 0.996
0.99 4.730 18.230 0.991
It can be seen from Figure (4-14) that the performance of the ANN model is
relatively insensitive to momentum rate in the range 0.1 to 0.6. The momentum rate 0.8
will be taken in this model because the highest correlation coefficient 0.996 and the
lowest testing error 4.322.
Thus, the optimum values for momentum rate and learning rate used in this model
is 0.80 and 0.20 respectively.
121
6
Training Error, %
5
2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Momentum Rate
23
19
Testing Error, %
15
11
3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Momentum Rate
0.997
0.996
0.995
0.994
0.993
0.992
0.991
0.99
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Momentum Rate
Figure (4-14) Effect of Various Momentum Rate on the Wearing Course ANN
Model (L r = 0.2).
122
The effect of using different transfer functions type is shown in Table (4-33).
It can be seen that the performance of ANN models is relatively insensitive to
transfer functions although a slightly better performance is obtained when the
sigmoid transfer function is used for the hidden layer and the hyperbolic tangent
(tanh) transfer function is used for the output layer because of the lowest testing
error.
Table (4-33) Effect of Transfer Function Type on ANN Performance Model.
Layer Transfer Correlation

Error %
Function Coefficient Parameters Effect
Hidden Output Training Testing R%
Sigmoid Sigmoid 4.799 4.322 0.996 Data Distribution is
Sigmoid Tanh 4.663 4.212 0.996 Blocked
Tanh Sigmoid 4.494 8.695 0.994 L r = 0.2, M r = 0.8
Tanh Tanh 4.875 5.663 0.986 Node No. =1
To ensure the data were carried out by the NEUFRAME software for
training, testing and validation sets to represent the same statistical population, a
statistical parameters estimation was carried out, including the mean, standard
deviation, minimum, maximum and range as shown in Table (4-34). The results
have generally indicated that the sets are statistically consistent.
T-test was used to examine how representative the sets with respect to each
other. T-test examines the null hypothesis of no difference in the means of a two
data sets. A confidence level of 95% that the training, testing and validation sets are
statistically consistent so the level of significance is 0.05.
123
the results of the t-test are given in Table (4-35). These results have indicated that
the three data sets are generally representative of a single statistical population.
Table (4-34) Input and Output Statistics for the ANN’s Wearing Course
Model.
Output
Statistical Input Variables
Variable
Parameter
Log N Log T Log P s Log 𝜼𝜼 Log 𝝈𝝈 Log ε p /ε r
Training Set
Min. 0 1.398 0.613 -0.456 0.813 -1.940
Max. 4 1.813 0.748 -0.305 1.114 1.258
Range 4 0.415 0.135 0.151 0.301 3.198
Mean 2.498 1.618 0.673 -0.343 0.965 -0.046
S.D 1.297 0.154 0.055 0.066 0.150 0.866
Testing Set
Min. 0 1.398 0.613 -0.456 0.813 -1.952
Max. 4 1.602 0.748 -0.456 1.114 0.904
Range 4 0.204 0.135 0 0.301 2.856
Mean 2.912 1.488 0.670 -0.456 0.945 0.036
S.D 1.216 0.101 0.056 9.48E-16 0.150 0.787
Validation Set
Min. 0 1.398 0.663 -0.456 0.813 -1.66
Max. 4 1.398 0.748 -0.456 0.813 0.461
Range 4 0 0.085 0 0 2.121
Mean 3.296 1.398 0.717 -0.456 0.813 0.053
S.D 1.035 0 0.041 5.68E-17 2.27E-16 0.547
124
Table (4-35) t-test for ANN’s Input and Output Variables for Wearing Model.
Output
Input Variables
Variables Variable
Data set Testing Set
t-value 25.217 154.069 125.131 -1.36E16 66.373 0.490
Lower
Confidence
2.683 1.468 0.660 -0.456 0.917 -0.111

Value
95 %
Upper
3.141 1.507 0.681 -0.456 0.974 0.184
Value
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Data set Validation Set
t-value 14.937 1.675E17 80.367 -2.18E16 2.410E16 0.458
Lower
Confidence
2.837 1.398 0.698 -0.456 0.813 -0.189

Value
95 %
Upper
3.755 1.398 0.735 -0.456 0.813 0.295
Value
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
4.3.5.4 Sensitivity Analysis of the ANN Model Inputs:
In an attempt to identify which of the input variables have the most

significant impact on the strain ratio prediction, a sensitivity analysis is carried out
on the ANN wearing course. A simple and innovative technique proposed by
Garson (1991) is used to interpret the relative importance of the input variables by
examining the connection weights of the trained network. For a network with one
hidden layer, the technique involves a process of partitioning the hidden output
connection weights into components associated with each input node. The method
125
is described as follows. The model has five input nodes, one hidden node, and one
output node with connection weights as follows:
Table (4-36) Connection Weights Between Hidden Node and Input and Output
Layer.
Hidden Weights
Node No. Log N Log T Log P s Log 𝜼𝜼 Log 𝝈𝝈 Log ε p /ε r
Hidden 1 1.582 0.112 0.024 0.014 0.054 3.149
The computational process proposed by Garson (1991) is as follows:
1. For each hidden node i, obtain the products P ij (where j represents the column
number of the weights mentioned above) by multiplying the absolute value of
the hidden-output layer connection weight by the absolute value of the hidden-
input layer connection weight of each input variable j.
2. For each hidden node, divide P ij by the sum of all input variables to obtain Q ij .
For each input nodes, sum Q ij to obtain S j , in this case the Q ij will be equal to
Sj.
3. Divide S j by the sum of all input variables to get the relative importance of all
output weights attributed to the given input variable.
Table (4-37) presents the calculations of the above steps.
The results have indicated that the number of load repetition has the most
significant effect on the predicted strain ratio followed by the temperature with a
relative importance of 88.5 % and 6.3 % respectively. The results have also
indicated that the stress level and the viscosity have a moderate impact on the
strain ratio with a relative importance equals to 3.0 % and 1.4 % respectively,
while the asphalt content has the smallest impact with relative importance of 0.8
%. The results are presented graphically in Figure (4-15).
126
Table (4-37) Sensitivity Analysis Results of ANN Model Input Variables
Absolute Absolute
Weights Hidden Weights
Input Output
from Node from R.I. %
Variables Node No.
𝑸𝑸𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊 = 𝑺𝑺𝒋𝒋 =
Input to No. Hidden

𝑷𝑷𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊 𝑷𝑷𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊
Hidden to Output
� 𝑸𝑸𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊
∑ 𝑷𝑷𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊
Log N 1.582 4.982 0.885 0.885 88.500
127
Log T 0.112 0.354 0.063 0.063 6.300
Log P s 0.024 1 3.149 1 0.078 0.014 0.014 1.400
Log 𝜼𝜼 0.014 0.044 0.008 0.008 0.800
0.054 0.172 0.030 0.030 3.000
5.632 1 100 %
Log 𝝈𝝈
� 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = � 𝑆𝑆𝑗𝑗 =
88.5
90
Relative Importance, RI
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 6.3 1.4 0.8 3.0
10
0
Log N Log T Log Ps Log 𝜂𝜂
Log V Log 𝜎𝜎
S
Input Variable
Figure (4-15) Relative Importance of the Input Variables for ANN Model.
4.3.5.5 ANN Model Equation
The small number of connection weights obtained for the optimal ANN
wearing course model enables the network to be translated into relatively simple
formula. To demonstrate this, the structure of the ANN model is shown in Figure
(4-16), whereas connection weights and threshold levels are summarized in Table
(4-38).
Log N 1
Log T 2
Log Ps 3 6 7 Log εp/εr
Log 𝜼𝜼 4
Hidden layer Output layer
Log 𝝈𝝈 5
Input layer
Figure (4-16) ANN’s Optimal Model Structure.
128
Table (4-38) Weights and Threshold Levels for the ANN Optimal Model.
w ji (Weight from Node i in the Input Layer to Node Hidden

Hidden
j in the Hidden Layer Layer
Layer
Threshold
Nodes i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 i=5
𝜽𝜽𝒋𝒋
j=6 1.582 0.112 0.024 0.014 0.054 -0.213
w ji (Weight from Node i in the Hidden Layer to Hidden
Output Node j in the Output Layer
Layer
Layer
i=5 Threshold
Node ---- ---- ---- ----
𝜽𝜽𝒋𝒋
j=7 3.149 ---- ---- ---- ---- -1.490
Using the connection weights and the threshold levels shown in Table (4-38),
the predicted wearing course strain ratio can be expressed as follows:
1
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = (4-8)
1+ 𝑒𝑒 −�—1.490 +3.149 tanh 𝑥𝑥�
Where
𝑥𝑥 = 𝜃𝜃6 + 𝑤𝑤61 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑁𝑁 + 𝑤𝑤62 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑇𝑇 + 𝑤𝑤63 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 + 𝑤𝑤64 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝜂𝜂 + 𝑤𝑤65 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝜎𝜎
(4-9)
It should be noted that, before using Equation (4-9), all input variables (i.e.
Log N, Log T, Log P s , Log 𝜂𝜂 and Log 𝜎𝜎) need to be scaled between 0.0 and 1.0 by
using Equation (4-7) and the data ranges in the ANN model training (see Table (4-
34)). It should also be noted that the predicted value of SR obtained from Equation
(4-8) is scaled between 0.0 and 1.0 and in order to obtain the actual value this strain
ratio has to be re-scaled using Equation (4-7) and the data ranges in Table (4-34).
The procedure for scaling and substituting the values of the weights and threshold
levels from Table (4-38), Equations (4-8) and (4-9) can be rewritten as follows:
129
3.198
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = − 1.940 (4-10)
1+ 𝑒𝑒 −�—1.490 +3.149 tanh 𝑥𝑥�
and
𝑥𝑥 = −0.809 + 0.395 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑁𝑁 + 0.270 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑇𝑇 + 0.183 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 + 0.094 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝜂𝜂 +
0.181 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝜎𝜎 (4-11)
where
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = Predicted strain ratio for wearing course in logarithmic scale.
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑁𝑁 = Logarithmic scale for number of load repetition.
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑇𝑇 = Logarithmic scale for Temperature (oC).
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 =Logarithmic scale for asphalt content (%).
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝜂𝜂 = Logarithmic scale for viscosity (Pa.sec), and
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝜎𝜎 = Logarithmic scale for stress level (psi).
A numerical example is provided for better explanation of the implementation of

wearing strain ratio formula. The data used are given below:
Log N = 0, Log T = 1.398, Log P s = 0.748, Log 𝜂𝜂 = -0.456, Log 𝜎𝜎 = 0.813
From Equation (4-11):
𝑥𝑥 = −0.809 + 0.395 × 0 + 0.270 × 1.398 + 0.183 × 0.748 + 0.094

× (−0.456) + 0.181 × 0.813
𝑥𝑥 = −0.189
From Equation (4-10)
3.198
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = − 1.940
1+ 𝑒𝑒 −�—1.490 +3.149 tanh (−0.189 )�
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = −1.584
130
The predicted value is compared fairly with the measured values (𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 =
-1.66), (Appendix A - Case No. 431).
4.3.5.6 Validity of the Wearing Course ANN Model:

The statistical measures used to measure the performance of the model
include:
1. Mean Percentage Error (MPE):
𝐴𝐴 −𝐸𝐸
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1� �
𝐴𝐴
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = � � × 100 % (4-12)
𝑛𝑛
Where:
A = actual value.
E = estimated value or predicted value.
n = total number of cases.
2. Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE):
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1(𝐸𝐸−𝐴𝐴)2
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = � (4-13)
𝑛𝑛
3. Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)

|𝐴𝐴 −𝐸𝐸|
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 ×100%
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 𝐴𝐴
(4-14)
𝑛𝑛
4. Average Accuracy Percentage (AA %).

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴% = 100 % − 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 (4-15)
5. The Coefficient of Determination (R2).
6. The Coefficient of Correlation (R).
The coefficient of determination measures how well the model outputs match
the target value. The MAPE and percentage RMSE are measures of the average
error.
The results of the comparative study are presented in Table (4-39). The
MAPE and Average Accuracy Percentage generated by ANN model were found to
be 58.233% and 41.766 % respectively.
131
Table (4-39) Results of the Comparative Study.
ANN Wearing
Description
Course Model
MPE -58.233
RMSE 0.273
MAPE 58.233
AA % 41.766
R 0.979
R2 0.959
To produce these solutions numerous trials were performed. During these

trials, error categorization was set up for conceptual estimate. Schexnaydr and
Mayo (2003) proposed the error of model estimation at the conceptual phase
approximately between ± 25. In the current study, the error categorization was
based on MAPE, Table (4-40). According to this table, MAPE categorization of
model 1 was poor.
Table (4-40) Error Categorization (%), Schexnaydr and Mayo (2003)
MAPE
Good Fair Poor
< 25 25 – 50 > 50
To assess the validity of the ANN wearing course model, the logarithmic of
predicted values of SR wearing are plotted against the logarithmic of observed values
of SR wearing for a validation data set, as shown in Figure (4-17). The figure shows
that the coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.959.
132
R2 = 0.959
Figure (4-17) Comparison of Estimated and Actual Wearing Course

Validation Data.
4.3.6 Model No.2: Prediction of Leveling Course Model:
The steps for developing this model are the same as those used in the
development of wearing course model.
4.3.6.1 Model Inputs and Outputs:

Five input variables were used in this model as in model No.1: Log N, Log
T, Log P s , Log 𝜂𝜂 and Log 𝜎𝜎; and one output variable was used: Log ε p /ε r .
The available data are also pre-processed and divided in the same manner for
model No.1. Trial and error process was used to select the best division, the results
are presented in Table (4-41) and shown graphically in Figure (4-18). It can be seen
that the best data subset division is (70, 25, 5) % according to highest correlation
coefficient (R%) 0.995 of the validation set. Thus data division No.6 will be
adopted in this model.
133
Table (4-41) Effect of Data Division on Performance of Leveling Course ANN
Model.
Correlation
Coefficient
1 80 5 15 4.748 9.587 0.992
2 75 5 20 4.862 7.936 0.968
3 75 10 15 4.862 8.672 0.993
4 70 5 25 4.823 4.863 0.955
5 70 10 20 4.823 4.167 0.970
6 70 25 5 4.823 5.989 0.995
7 65 5 30 4.874 8.566 0.949
8 65 20 15 4.874 6.407 0.993
9 60 10 30 4.816 6.243 0.954
10 60 25 15 4.816 6.149 0.994
11 55 10 35 4.721 4.091 0.950
12 55 20 25 4.721 5.718 0.963
13 50 25 25 4.884 7.465 0.961
14 50 40 10 4.884 7.493 0.989
random) was investigated and shown in Table (4-42). It is unmistakable that the
134
5.0
4.9
Training Error, %
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Data Division No.
10.0
9.0
Testing Error, %
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Data Division No.
1.000
0.990
0.980
0.970
0.960
0.950
0.940
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Data Division No.
Figure (4-18) Effect of Data Division on the Performance of the Leveling

Course ANN Model.
135
Data Correlation
70 25 5 Blocked 4.823 5.989 0.995
70 25 5 Striped 4.716 5.159 0.982
70 25 5 Random 4.681 4.864 -0.019
Once the available data have been divided into their subsets, the input and
output variables are scaled by using Equation (4-7) to eliminate their dimensions
and to ensure that all variables receive equal attention during training.
The network of model No.2 was set to one hidden layer with default
parameters of software (learning rate 0.2 and momentum rate is equal to 0.8). A
number of trials were carried out with one hidden layer and 1, 2, 3, …..,11 hidden
layer nodes (2I + 1) (where I the number of input nodes). The results are shown
graphically in Figure (4-19) and summarized in Table (4-43) for leveling course
ANN model.
136
Table (4-43) Effect of Number of Nodes on Leveling Course ANN Performance
Model
Correlation
Coefficient
No.
Training Testing R%
1 4.643 9.353 0.996
3 4.823 5.989 0.995 Learning Rate = 0.2
4 4.811 6.227 0.995 Momentum Rate = 0.8
6 4.736 8.093 0.995 Layer is Sigmoid
8 4.825 6.730 0.995 Layer is Sigmoid
9 4.853 6.356 0.995
10 4.791 6.626 0.995
11 4.803 5.934 0.995
137
4.90
4.85
Training Error, %
4.80
4.75
4.70
4.65
4.60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Node No.
10.00
9.50
9.00
Testing Error, %
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Node No.
0.999
0.998
0.997
0.996
0.995
0.994
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Node No.
Figure (4-19) Performance of the Leveling Course ANN Model with Different
Hidden Nodes.
138
Figure (4-19) shows that there is no significant improvement in the model
performance; thus node No.1 in hidden layer will be taken in this model.
The effect of the learning rate (L r ) on the model performance is investigated

for the model with one hidden layer node (momentum rate = 0.8). The results are
presented in Table (4-44) and shown graphically in Figure (4-20).
Correlation
Learning Error %
Rate
Training Testing R%
0.05 4.946 7.092 0.995
0.09 4.842 7.585 0.995
0.2 4.643 9.353 0.996 M r = 0.8
0.3 4.793 7.719 0.995 Node No. =1
0.5 4.379 15.936 0.996 Layer is Sigmoid
0.7 4.482 17.045 0.994 Layer is Sigmoid
0.8 4.302 17.450 0.995
0.9 4.375 17.801 0.996
0.99 4.315 18.085 0.996
From Table (4-44) and Figure (4-20) the learning rate 0.2 will be taken in
this model because of the highest correlation coefficient 0.996.
139
6
Training Error, %
5
2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Learning Rate
21
18
Testing Error, %
15
12
3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Learning Rate
0.998
0.997
0.996
0.995
0.994
0.993
0.992
0.991
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Learning Rate
Figure (4-20) Effect of Various Learning Rate on the Leveling Course ANN
Model (M r = 0.8).
140
In addition, the effect of the momentum rate on the model performance was
also investigated at learning rate 0.2. The results are tabulated in Table (4-45) and
Correlation
Momentum Error %
Rate
Training Testing R%
0.1 4.948 6.635 0.995
0.2 4.931 7.099 0.994
0.3 4.906 7.219 0.995
L r = 0.2
0.4 4.833 7.555 0.993
Node No. =1
0.5 4.918 6.231 0.995
0.6 4.999 6.830 0.993
Layer is Sigmoid
0.7 4.695 7.419 0.995
0.8 4.643 9.353 0.996
Layer is Sigmoid
0.9 4.613 14.755 0.993
0.95 4.314 14.936 0.994
0.99 4.250 3.710 0.992
relatively insensitive to momentum rate, particularly in the range 0.1 to 0.8 so the
momentum rate 0.8 will be taken in this model.
Thus, the optimum values for momentum rate and learning rate used is 0.8 and 0.2
respectively.
141
6
Training Error, %
5
2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Momentum Rate
18
15
Testing Error, %
12
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Momentum Rate
1.000
0.996
0.992
0.988
0.984
0.980
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Momentum Rate
Figure (4-21) Effect of Various Momentum Rate on the Leveling Course ANN
Model (L r = 0.2).
142
The effect of using different transfer functions type is shown in Table (4-46).
It can be seen that the performance of ANN models is relatively insensitive to
transfer functions although a slightly better performance is obtained when the
sigmoid transfer function is used for the hidden layer and the tanh transfer function
is used in the output layer.
Table (4-46) Effect of Transfer Function Type on ANN Performance Model.

Error %
Tanh Tanh 4.617 5.970 0.987 Node No. =1
To ensure the data were carried out by the NEUFRAME software for
training, testing, validation sets to represent the same statistical population, a
statistical parameters estimation was carried out, including the mean, standard
The results of the t-test are given in Table (4-48). These results have
indicated that the three data sets are generally representative of a single statistical
population.
143
Table (4-47) Input and Output Statistics for the ANN’s Leveling Course
Model.
Output
Variable
Parameter
Training Set
Min. 0 1.398 0.568 -0.456 0.813 -1.981
Max. 4 1.813 0.716 -0.305 1.114 1.264
Range 4 0.415 0.148 0.151 0.301 3.245
Mean 2.566 1.619 0.632 -0.350 0.969 0.024
S.D 1.295 0.151 0.060 0.069 0.150 0.875
Testing Set
Min. 0 1.398 0.568 -0.456 0.813 -2.063
Max. 4 1.602 0.716 -0.456 1.114 1.144
Range 4 0.204 0.148 0 0.301 3.207
Mean 2.972 1.497 0.636 -0.456 0.959 0.109
S.D 1.208 0.102 0.063 1.06E-15 0.151 0.822
Validation Set
Min. 0 1.398 0.623 -0.456 0.813 -1.872
Max. 4 1.398 0.716 -0.456 0.813 0.43
Range 4 0 0.093 0 0 2.302
Mean 3.284 1.398 0.677 -0.456 0.813 0.019
S.D 0.990 0 0.046 0 1.13E-16 0.563
144
Table (4-48) t-test for ANN’s Input and Output Variables for Leveling Model.
Output
Input Variables
Variables Variable
t-value 26.602 158.163 108.354 -1.20E16 68.698 1.444
Lower
Confidence
2.751 1.478 0.625 -0.456 0.931 -0.040

Value
95 %
Upper
3.193 1.516 0.648 -0.456 0.987 0.260
Value
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
t-value 16.237 1.641E17 70.840 -2.35E16 2.525E16 0.166
Lower
Confidence
2.865 1.398 0.657 -0.456 0.813 -0.218

Value
95 %
Upper
3.702 1.398 0.697 -0.456 0.813 0.256
Value
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Model No.2 has five input nodes, one hidden node, and one output node with
connection weights as shown in Table (4-49):
Layer.
Hidden Weights
Hidden 1 1.451 0.178 0.082 0.082 0.063 3.369
145
To identify which of the input variables have the most significant impact on
the SR Leveling predictions, a sensitivity analysis was carried out by using the same
technique used in section (4.3.5.4), and as shown in Table (4-50).
The results have indicated that the number of load repetition has the most
significant effect on the predicted strain ratio, the relative importance is 78.1 %
followed by the temperature with a relative importance of 9.7 %; whereas the
viscosity and the asphalt content have the same relative importance on the strain
ratio prediction and equal to 4.4 %, while the stress level has the smallest impact on
the strain ratio with relative importance of 3.4 %. The results are presented
graphically in Figure (4-22).
78.1
80
70
60
50
40
30
9.7
20 4.4 4.4 3.4
10
0
Log N Log T Log Ps Log V𝜂𝜂
Log LogS𝜎𝜎
Log
Input Variable
Figure (4-22) Relative Importance of the Input Variables for Leveling Course
ANN Model.
146
Table (4-50) Sensitivity Analysis Results of ANN Model Input Variables
Absolute Absolute
Input Output
Variables Node No.
Input to No. Hidden

Hidden to Output
Log N 1.451 4.889 0.781 0.781 78.10
147
Log T 0.178 0.603 0.097 0.097 9.70
Log P s 0.082 1 3.369 1 0.278 0.044 0.044 4.40
Log 𝜼𝜼 0.082 0.278 0.044 0.044 4.40
0.063 0.214 0.034 0.034 3.40
6.263 1 100 %
Log 𝝈𝝈
� 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = � 𝑆𝑆𝑗𝑗 =
4.3.6.6 ANN Model Equation
The small number of connection weights obtained for the optimal ANN leveling
course model enables the network to be translated into relatively simple formula.
To demonstrate this, the structure of the ANN model is shown in Figure (4-23),
whereas connection weights and threshold levels are summarized in Table (4-51).
Log N 1
Log T 2
Log 𝜼𝜼 4
Log 𝝈𝝈 5
Input layer

w ji (Weight from Node i in the Input Layer to Hidden

Hidden Node j in the Hidden Layer Layer
Layer Threshold
Nodes i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 i=5 𝜽𝜽𝒋𝒋
j=6 1.451 0.178 0.082 0.082 0.063 -0.848
w ji (Weight from Node i in the Hidden Layer to Hidden
Output Node j in the Output Layer Layer
Layer Threshold
Node i=5 ---- ---- ---- ---- 𝜽𝜽𝒋𝒋
j=7 3.369 ---- ---- ---- ---- -1.193
the predicted leveling course strain ratio can be expressed as follows:
148
1
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = (4-16)
1+ 𝑒𝑒 −(−1.193 + 3.369 tanh 𝑥𝑥)
where:
(4-17)
As in the wearing course model, all input variables (i.e. Log N, Log T, Log
P s , Log 𝜂𝜂, Log 𝜎𝜎) should be scaled between 0.0 and 1.0 by using Equation (4-7)
before using Equation (4-17), and the data ranges in the ANN model training (see
Table (4-47)). It should also be noted that the predicted value of SR obtained from
Equation (4-16) is scaled between 0.0 and 1.0 and in order to obtain the actual
value this strain ratio has to be re-scaled by using Equation (4-7) and the data
ranges in Table (4-47). The procedure for scaling and substituting the values of the
weights and threshold levels from Table (4-51), Equations (4-16) and (4-17) can be
rewritten as follows:
3.245
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = − 1.981 (4-18)
1+ 𝑒𝑒 −(−1.193 + 3.369 tanh 𝑥𝑥)
and
0.211 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝜎𝜎 (4-19)
where
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = Predicted strain ratio for leveling course in logarithmic scale.
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑇𝑇 = Logarithmic scale for Temperature (oC).
149
A numerical example is provided for better explanation of the implementation of
strain ratio formula. The data used are given below:
𝑥𝑥 = −1.690 + 0.362 × 0 + 0.431 × 1.398 + 0.558 × 0.716 + 0.547

× (−0.456) + 0.211 × 0.813
𝑥𝑥 = −0.765
From Equation (4-18)
3.245
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = − 1.981 = −1.872
1 + 𝑒𝑒 −(−1.193 + 3.369 tanh (−0.765))
The predicted value is compared fairly with the measured values (𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
= -1.872), (Appendix A - case No. 456).
4.3.6.7 Validity of the Leveling Course ANN Model:

The steps for statistical measuring this model are the same as those used in
measuring the performance of the model No.1 that’s include: Mean Percentage
Error (MPE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error
(MAPE), Average Accuracy Percentage (AA %), The Coefficient of Determination
(R2) and The Coefficient of Correlation (R).
150
ANN Leveling
Description
Course Model
MPE -10.545
RMSE 0.291
MAPE 10.545
AA % 89.455
R 0.979
R2 0.960
In the current study error categorization is proposed and based on MAPE,

Table (4-40). According to this table, the model is considered to be good.
Therefore, high accuracy requires more time to train network and search for a
sophistication ANN model.
To assess the validity of the ANN leveling course model, the logarithmic of
predicted values of SR Leveling are plotted against the logarithmic of observed values
of SR Leveling for a validation data set, as shown in Figure (4-24). The figure shows
that the coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.960.
151
R2 = 0.960
Figure (4-24) Comparison of Estimated and Actual Leveling Course

Validation Data.
4.3.7 Model No.3: Prediction of Base Course Model:
The same steps for developing the previous models are employed in the
prediction of base course model.
4.3.7.1 Model Inputs and Outputs:

As noticed previously, there are five input variables used in this model: Log
N, Log T, Log P s , Log 𝜂𝜂 and Log 𝜎𝜎; but one output variable was used: Log ε p /ε r .
The available data are also pre-processed and divided. Trial and error process
was used to select the best division. The results are presented in Table (4-53) and
It can be seen that the best data subset division is (75, 20, 5) % according to
highest correlation coefficient (R%) of the validation set. Thus, data division No.4
will be considered in this model.
152
Table (4-53) Effect of Data Division on Performance of Base Course ANN
Model.
Correlation
Coefficient
1 80 5 15 4.672 2.564 0.975
2 80 10 10 4.672 3.529 0.992
3 75 5 20 4.748 5.391 0.978
4 75 20 5 4.748 4.494 0.996
5 70 10 20 4.650 5.285 0.980
6 65 5 30 4.724 9.070 0.968
7 65 25 10 4.724 6.472 0.992
8 60 5 35 4.978 8.461 0.968
9 60 10 30 4.978 9.158 0.969
10 60 35 5 4.978 6.839 0.995
11 55 5 40 4.769 5.842 0.974
12 55 10 35 4.769 5.821 0.970
13 50 5 45 4.953 6.387 0.978
14 50 15 35 4.953 6.590 0.973
random) was investigated and shown in Table (4-54). There is no doubt that the
153
5.1
5.0
Training Error, %
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Data Division No.
10.0
9.0
Testing Error, %
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Data Division No.
0.997
0.993
0.989
0.985
0.981
0.977
0.973
0.969
0.965
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Data Division No.
Figure (4-25) Effect of Data Division on the Performance of the Base Course
ANN Model.
154
Data Correlation
75 20 5 Blocked 4.748 4.494 0.996
75 20 5 Striped 4.615 4.884 0.966
75 20 5 Random 4.766 6.720 -0.055
After the data have been divided into their subsets, the input and output
variables are scaled by using Equation (4-7) to eliminate their dimensions and to
ensure that all variables receive equal attention during training.
The network of model No.3 was set to one hidden layer with default
parameters of software (learning rate 0.2 and momentum rate 0.8). A number of
trials were carried out with one hidden layer and starting with one hidden layer
node till eleven hidden layer node according to (2I + 1) (where I the number of
input nodes). The results are shown graphically in Figure (4-26) and summarized in
Table (4-55) for base course ANN model.
155
Table (4-55) Effect of Number of Nodes on Base Course ANN Performance
Model.
Correlation
Coefficient
No.
Training Testing R%
1 4.653 4.046 0.996
3 4.748 4.494 0.996 Learning Rate = 0.2
4 4.723 4.565 0.996 Momentum Rate = 0.8
6 4.919 4.696 0.996 Layer is Sigmoid
8 4.778 4.780 0.996 Layer is Sigmoid
9 4.786 4.568 0.996
10 4.721 4.623 0.996
11 4.963 4.882 0.996
156
5.00
Training Error, %
4.90
4.80
4.70
4.60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Node No.
5.60
5.40
5.20
Testing Error, %
5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Node No.
0.999
0.998
0.997
0.996
0.995
0.994
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Node No.
Figure (4-26) Performance of the Base Course ANN Model with Different
Hidden Nodes.
157
It is very obvious that the performance of the ANN model is relatively
insensitive to the increasing in number of nodes in hidden layer. Thus node No.1
will be adopted in this model.
The effect of the learning rate (L r ) on the model performance is investigated

for the model with one hidden layer node (momentum rate = 0.8). The results are
presented in Table (4-56) and shown graphically in Figure (4-27).
Correlation
Learning Error %
Rate
Training Testing R%
0.05 4.903 4.962 0.995
0.09 4.824 5.293 0.994
0.2 4.653 4.046 0.996 M r = 0.8
0.3 4.541 6.052 0.994 Node No. =1
0.5 4.230 17.060 0.994 Layer is Sigmoid
0.7 4.569 16.391 0.991 Layer is Sigmoid
0.8 4.413 15.859 0.991
0.9 4.324 15.251 0.995
0.99 4.240 14.709 0.995
From Table (4-56) and Figure (4-27) the learning rate 0.2 will be considered
in this model because of lowest testing error value 4.046 and the highest correlation
coefficient 0.996.
158
6
Training Error, %
5
2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Learning Rate
18
15
Testing Error, %
12
3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Learning Rate
0.997
0.996
0.995
0.994
0.993
0.992
0.991
0.990
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Learning Rate
Figure (4-27) Effect of Various Learning Rate on the Base Course ANN Model
(M r = 0.8).
159
Also, the effect of the momentum rate on the model performance was
investigated at learning rate 0.2. The results are summarized in Table (4-57) and
Correlation
Momentum Error %
Rate
Training Testing R%
0.1 4.907 5.630 0.995
0.2 4.906 5.049 0.995
0.3 4.944 5.410 0.995
L r = 0.05
0.4 4.952 5.389 0.994
Node No. =1
0.5 4.748 5.709 0.995
0.6 4.726 5.553 0.995
Layer is Sigmoid
0.7 4.605 6.111 0.996
0.8 4.653 4.046 0.996
Layer is Sigmoid
0.9 4.676 4.324 0.995
0.95 4.225 18.908 0.992
0.99 4.189 18.553 0.990
relatively insensitive to momentum rate so the momentum rate 0.8 will be considered
in this model.
Thus, the optimum values for momentum rate and learning rate used is 0.8
and 0.2 respectively.
160
8
Training Error, %
6
3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Momentum Rate
20
18
16
Testing Error, %
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Momentum Rate
0.997
0.996
0.995
0.994
0.993
0.992
0.991
0.990
0.989
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Momentum Rate
Figure (4-28) Effect of Various Momentum Rate on the Base Course ANN
Model (L r = 0.2).
161
In addition, the effect of using different transfer functions type is shown in
Table (4-58). The performance of ANN models is relatively insensitive to transfer
functions although a slightly better performance is obtained when the sigmoid
transfer function is used for the hidden layer and the tanh transfer function for the
output layer.
Table (4-58) Effect of Transfer Function Type on ANN’s Performance Model.

Error %
Tanh Tanh 4.681 7.643 0.988 Node No. =1
A statistical parameters estimation was carried out to ensure the data were
carried out by the NEUFRAME software. It is include the mean, standard
The results of the t-test are given in Table (4-60). These results have
indicated that the three data sets are generally representative of a single statistical
population.
162
Table (4-59) Input and Output Statistics for the ANN’s Base Course Model.
Output
Variable
Parameter
Training Set
Min. 0 1.398 0.531 -0.456 0.813 -2.157
Max. 4 1.813 0.69 -0.305 1.114 1.459
Range 4 0.415 0.159 0.151 0.301 3.616
Mean 2.188 1.608 0.602 -0.354 0.954 -0.171
S.D 1.297 0.160 0.065 0.071 0.150 0.972
Testing Set
Min. 0 1.398 0.531 -0.456 0.813 -1.78
Max. 4 1.602 0.69 -0.456 1.114 1.088
Range 4 0.204 0.159 0 0.301 2.868
Mean 2.981 1.412 0.593 -0.456 0.991 0.214
S.D 1.157 0.052 0.063 2.24E-16 0.149 0.749
Validation Set
Min. 0 1.398 0.591 -0.456 0.813 -1.518
Max. 4 1.398 0.69 -0.456 0.813 0.729
Range 4 0 0.099 0 0 2.247
Mean 3.22 1.398 0.668 -0.456 0.813 0.271
S.D 1.134 0 0.042 1.71E-16 2.28E-16 0.622
163
Table (4-60) t-test for ANN’s Input and Output Variables for Base Model.
Output
Input Variables
Variable
Variables
Log
Log N Log T Log P s Log 𝜼𝜼 Log 𝝈𝝈
ε p /ε r
t-value 21.697 226.395 78.220 -2.22E16 56.042 2.409
Lower
Confidence
2.707 1.399 0.578 -0.456 0.955 0.036

Value
95 %
Upper
3.255 1.424 0.608 -0.456 1.026 0.391
Value
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
t-value 12.044 1.520E17 66.918 -2.28E16 2.990E16 1.852
Lower
Confidence
2.655 1.398 0.646 -0.456 0.813 -0.037

Value
95 %
Upper
3.784 1.398 0.689 -0.456 0.813 0.581
Value
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Model No.3 has five input nodes, one hidden node, and one output node with
connection weights as shown in Table (4-61):
Layer.
Hidden Weights
Hidden 1 1.622 0.017 0.031 0.019 0.084 3.033
164
Table (4-62) Sensitivity Analysis Results of ANN’s Model Input Variables
Absolute Absolute
Output
Node No.
Input to No. Hidden

Hidden to Output
1.622 4.920 0.914 0.914 91.400
165
0.017 0.051 0.010 0.010 1.000
technique used in section (4.3.5.4), and as follows:
0.031 1 3.033 1 0.096 0.018 0.018 1.800
0.019 0.058 0.011 0.011 1.100
0.084 0.254 0.047 0.047 4.700
� 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 5.382 � 𝑆𝑆𝑗𝑗 = 1 100 %

the SR Base predictions, a sensitivity analysis was carried out by using the same
To identify which of the input variables have the most significant impact on
Variables
Log P s
Log N
Log T
Log 𝝈𝝈
Log 𝜼𝜼
Input
As in the previous models, the number of load repetition has the most
significant effect on the predicted strain ratio followed by the stress level with a
relative importance of 91.4 % and 4.7 % respectively. The results have also
indicated that the asphalt content has relative importance of 1.8 % and the
viscosity comes after the asphalt content and has a relative importance equals to
1.1 %, while the temperature has the smallest impact on the strain ratio prediction
with relative importance of 1.0 %. The results are presented graphically in Figure
(4-29).
91.4
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 1.0 1.8 1.1 4.7
10
0
Log N Log T Log Ps Log V𝜂𝜂
Log LogS𝜎𝜎
Log
Input Variable
Figure (4-29) Relative Importance of the Input Variables for Base Course
ANN Model.
4.3.7.6 ANN’s Model Equation
166
The structure of the ANN model is shown in Figure (4-30), whereas
connection weights and threshold levels are summarized in Table (4-63).
Log N 1
Log T 2
Log 𝜼𝜼 4
Log 𝝈𝝈 5
Input layer
w ji (Weight from Node i in the Input Layer to Hidden

Hidden
Node j in the Hidden Layer Layer
Layer
Threshold
Nodes i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 i=5
𝜽𝜽𝒋𝒋
j=6 1.622 0.017 0.031 0.019 0.084 -0.208
Output w ji (Weight from Node i in the Hidden Layer to Hidden
Node j in the Output Layer
Layer i=5 Layer
---- ---- ---- ----
167
Node Threshold
𝜽𝜽𝒋𝒋
j=7 3.033 ---- ---- ---- ---- -1.343
the predicted base course model can be expressed as follows:
1
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = (4-20)
1+ 𝑒𝑒 −(−1.343 + 3.033 tanh 𝑥𝑥 )
where:
(4-21)
As in previous models, all input variables (i.e. Log N, Log T, Log P s , Log 𝜂𝜂,
Log 𝜎𝜎) should be scaled between 0.0 and 1.0. The procedure for scaling and
substituting the values of the weights and threshold levels was presented in the
previous models. Equations (4-20) and (4-21) can be rewritten as follows:
3.616
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = − 2.157 (4-22)
1+ 𝑒𝑒 −(−1.343 + 3.033 tanh 𝑥𝑥 )
and
0.279 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝜎𝜎 (4-23)
where
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = Predicted strain ratio for base course in logarithmic scale.
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑔𝑔 𝑇𝑇 = Logarithmic scale for Temperature (oC).
168
A numerical example is provided for better explanation of the

implementation of strain ratio formula. The used data are given below:
𝑥𝑥 = −0.540 + 0.405 × 4 + 0.041 × 1.398 + 0.200 × 0.69 + 0.128

× (−0.456) + 0.279 × 0.813
𝑥𝑥 = 1.445
from Equation (4-22)
3.616
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = − 2.157
1 + 𝑒𝑒 −(−1.343 + 3.033 tanh (1.445))
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = 0.726
The predicted value is compared fairly with the measured values (𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = 0.729),
(Appendix A - case No. 357).
4.3.7.7 Validity of the Base Course ANN Model:

The steps for statistical measuring this model are the same as the previous
one in measuring the performance of the model 1 and 2 this includes: Mean
Percentage Error (MPE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute
Percentage Error (MAPE), Average Accuracy Percentage (AA %), The Coefficient
of Determination (R2) and The Coefficient of Correlation (R).

169
ANN Base Course
Description
Model
MPE -69.870
RMSE 0.177
MAPE 68.751
AA % 31.248
R 0.981
R2 0.964
In the current study error categorization is proposed and based on MAPE,

Table (4-40). According to this table, the model is considered to be poor.
The logarithmic of predicted values of SR Base are plotted against the

logarithmic of observed values of SR Base for a validation data set in order to assess
the validity of the ANN’s model for the base course as shown in Figure (4-31). The
figure shows that the coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.964.
R2 = 0.964
170
Figure (4-31) Comparison of Estimated and Actual Base Course Validation
Data.
4.4 Comparison Between Regression and Artificial Neural Network

Approaches:
The prediction of strain ratio for wearing, leveling and base coarse models
were made with both approaches the regression and the artificial neural network as
presented previously. A statistical measures comparison between the two
approaches was made and summarized in Table (4-65) to measure the performance
of the two approaches. The statistical measures include: Mean Percentage Error
(MPE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error
(MAPE), Average Accuracy Percentage (AA %), the Coefficient of Determination
(R2) and the Coefficient of Correlation (R).
Table (4-65) shows that the coefficient of determination R2 for wearing
course model was 0.959 and 0.967 for ANN and Regression approach respectively;
this means there is only 4.1 % and 3.3 % of observed variation is unexplained by
the ANN’s and the regression models and it is considered a very good relation
obtained; but the regression predicted model was more accurate by 50% than the
ANN predicted model because the average accuracy (AA%) was 83.594 % and
41.766 % in the regression and ANN model respectively. Furthermore the MAPE
categorization in the regression model was better than the ANN model because the
categorization was good in the regression model whereas in the ANN model was
poor.
171
The table also shows that the coefficient of determination R2 for leveling
course model was 0.960 and 0.961 for ANN and Regression approach respectively.
The unexplained observed variation in the two models was 4.0 and 3.9 percent for
ANN and regression model respectively. Thus, the two models are considered a
very good relation obtained. Also, the MAPE categorization in regression and
ANN model was good. In spite of this, the regression predicted model was more
accurate by 2.4 % than the ANN predicted model because the average accuracy
(AA%) was 91.661 % and 89.455 % in the regression and ANN model
respectively.
In the base course prediction models the table shows that the coefficient of
determination R2 was 0.964 and 0.941 for ANN and Regression approach
respectively. The unexplained observed variation in the two models was 3.6 and 5.9
percent for ANN and regression models respectively. Moreover, the MAPE
categorization in regression and ANN model was good and poor respectively. Thus,
the regression predicted model was more accurate by 66 % than the ANN predicted
model, the average accuracy (AA%) was 92.041 % and 31.248 % in the regression
and ANN model respectively.
As a result, the regression approach in prediction of strain ratio model was
better than the ANN approach in the three models. Thus, the regression predicted
models will be adopted in this research.
172
Table (4-65) Comparison Between Regression and ANN Approaches.
Wearing Course Model

Description ANN Regression
MPE -58.233 -10.855
RMSE 0.273 0.161
MAPE 58.233 16.405
AA % 41.766 83.594
R 0.979 0.983
R2 0.959 0.967
MAPE Categorization Poor Good
Leveling Course Model
MPE -10.545 -0.943
RMSE 0.291 0.166
MAPE 10.545 8.338
AA % 89.455 91.661
R 0.979 0.980
R2 0.960 0.961
MAPE Categorization Good Good
Base Course Model
MPE -69.870 -37.198
173
RMSE 0.177 0.225
MAPE 68.751 7.958
AA % 31.248 92.041
R 0.981 0.970
R2 0.964 0.941
MAPE Categorization Poor Good
4.5 Development of Resilient Strain Models:

In order to simplify the use of the developed models, resilient strain models
are required. The same steps in developing the plastic-elastic strain models
followed in the development of the resilient strain models. SPSS version 19
software was used in the regression analysis of the laboratory data for the three
models. The laboratory data are splitting into two groups; the first one for building
the models and the second one for validating the developed models. The dependent
variable used in developing the three models is the resilient strain whereas three
independent variables were used: the temperature, the asphalt binder content and
the viscosity.
4.5.1 Testing of Normality:
Kolmogorov-Smirnov or (K-S) test was used to check if the variables are
normally distributed, Table (4-66) presents the results of the test for the three
models.
Table (4-66) D-Value and K-S Test Results.

Mixture D+ D-
1 Wearing log 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 0.098 -0.094 0.098 0.518
2 Leveling log 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 0.095 -0.160 0.160 0.847
3 Base log 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 0.074 -0.120 0.120 0.637
174
4.5.2 Multicollinearty:
Multicollinearity was used to find the correlation between independent
variables with one another. Tables (4-67) through (4-69) present the three mixtures
independent variables correlation.
Table (4-67) Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Wearing Course Model.
Variable T Ps 𝜼𝜼 𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
T 1.000 -.212 -.036 .940
Ps -.212 1.000 .091 -.111
𝜼𝜼 -.036 .091 1.000 -.152
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓 .940 -.111 -.152 1.000
Table (4-68) Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Leveling Course Model.
T 1.000 -.212 -.036 .917
Ps -.212 1.000 .091 .062
𝜼𝜼 -.036 .091 1.000 -.114
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓 .917 .062 -.114 1.000
Table (4-69) Correlation Coefficient Matrix (R) for Base Course Model.
175
T 1.000 -.213 -.036 .858
Ps -.213 1.000 .091 .120
𝜼𝜼 -.036 .091 1.000 -.172
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓 .858 .120 -.172 1.000
4.5.3 Models Limitations

The limitations of the data used to build the three models are presented in
Tables (4-70) through (4-72).
Table (4-70) Data Limitations Used in Wearing Model.

Building Model Data, N = 28
T 40 25 65 48.392
Ps 1.5 4.1 5.6 4.742
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.433
εr 0.0012 1.49E-06 0.0012 0.149E-03
Validation Data, N = 20
T 40 25 65 43.25
Ps 1.5 4.1 5.6 4.8
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.408
εr 0.902E-03 1.33E-06 0.904E-03 0.173E-03
Table (4-71) Data Limitations Used in Leveling Model.

T 40 25 65 48.392
Ps 1.5 3.7 5.2 4.342
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.433
εr 0.604E-03 1.35E-06 0.605E-03 0.104E-03
176
T 40 25 65 43.25
Ps 1.5 3.7 5.2 4.4
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.408
εr 0.487E-03 1.22E-06 0.489E-03 0.101E-03
Table (4-72) Data Limitations Used in Base Model.

T 40 25 65 48.392
Ps 1.5 3.4 4.9 4.042
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.433
εr 0.589E-03 9.93E-07 0.590E-03 6.96E-05
T 40 25 65 43.25
Ps 1.5 3.4 4.9 4.1
𝜼𝜼 0.146 0.35 0.496 0.408
εr 0.339E-03 9.04E-07 0.340E-03 6.95E-05
4.5.4 Number of Samples

Number of samples for each model should be check. T-test and F-test were
used for this purpose. Tables (4-73) through (4-81) show the descriptive statistics
and the results of T-test and F-test for the three resilient strain models.
Table (4-73) Descriptive Statistics for Wearing Course No. of Samples

48 -5.875 -2.920 -4.497 0.881 0.777
30 -5.875 -2.920 -4.329 0.963 0.928
177
20 -5.715 -3.243 -4.412 0.778 0.606
Table (4-74) T-Test Results for Wearing Course No. of Samples
95% confidence
Pair of t t Mean interval of the
df Difference
Samples Calculated Tabulated Difference
Lower Upper
48 and 30 -52.744 1.994 1 -4.413 -5.476 -3.350
48, 30 and 20 -91.339 1.988 2 -4.413 -4.621 -4.205
Table (4-75) F-Test Results for Wearing Course No. of Samples
Pair of
Samples
48 and 30 0.577 1.773
48 and 20 0.563 2.010
30 and 20 0.335 1.961
Table (4-76) Descriptive Statistics for Leveling Course No. of Samples
178
48 -5.913 -3.218 -4.478 0.768 0.590
30 -5.913 -3.218 -4.381 0.822 0.676
20 -5.630 -3.311 -4.398 0.724 0.525
Table (4-77) T-Test Results for Leveling Course No. of Samples
95% confidence
df
Samples Calculated Tabulated Difference Difference
Lower Upper
48 and 30 -91.950 1.994 1 -4.430 -5.042 -3.818
48, 30 and 20 -148.255 1.988 2 -4.419 -4.547 -4.291
Table (4-78) F-Test Results for Leveling Course No. of Samples
Pair of
Samples
48 and 30 0.665 1.773
48 and 20 0.806 2.010
30 and 20 0.572 1.961
Table (4-79) Descriptive Statistics for Base Course No. of Samples
179
48 -6.044 -3.229 -4.676 0.753 0.567
30 -6.044 -3.229 -4.582 0.800 0.641
20 -5.747 -3.469 -4.637 0.669 0.448
Table (4-80) T-Test Results for Base Course No. of Samples
95% confidence
df
Samples Calculated Tabulated Difference Difference
Lower Upper
48 and 30 -98.454 1.994 1 -4.629 -5.226 -4.031
48, 30 and 20 -169.796 1.988 2 -4.631 -4.749 -4.514
Table (4-81) F-Test Results for Base Course No. of Samples
Pair of
Samples
48 and 30 0.695 1.773
48 and 20 0.586 2.010
30 and 20 0.419 1.961
All T-test tables results show that the calculated (t) values are less than the
tabulated (t) values, also the F-test tables results show that the calculated F values
180
are less than the tabulated F values. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted and the
use of any number of samples is representative in all asphalt courses resilient strain
models.
4.5.5 Goodness of Fit

The results of ANOVA and summary of the regression for the models are
presented in Tables (4-82) through Table (4-84) for wearing, leveling and base
course resilient strain models. The developed models can also be seen in Tables (4-
85) through Table (4-87).
Table (4-82) Results of ANOVA for Wearing Course Model.
Sum of Mean
Model Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 16.780 3 5.593 78.395 .000
1 Residual 1.712 24 .071
Total 18.493 27
Table (4-83) Results of ANOVA for Leveling Course Model.
Sum of Mean
Model Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 12.669 3 4.223 91.751 .000
1 Residual 1.105 24 .046
Total 13.774 27
Table (4-84) Results of ANOVA for Base Course Model.
181
Sum of Mean
Model Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 11.394 3 3.798 49.573 .000
1 Residual 1.839 24 .077
Total 13.232 27
Table (4-85) Regression Developed Model for Wearing Course.

Model t SER
𝐁𝐁
Bound Bound
𝛼𝛼 -14.425 -14.316 .000 -16.504 -12.345
Log T 5.079 15.056 .000 4.383 5.775
.267
1 Log P s 1.611 1.609 .000 -.456 3.678
Log 𝜂𝜂 -1.379 -2.032 .000 -2.779 .021
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.425 × 𝑇𝑇 5.079 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 1.611 × 𝜂𝜂 −1.379
R = 0.953, R2 = 0.907, Adjusted R2= 0.896
Table (4-86) Regression Developed Model for Leveling Course.

Estimated Sig. 95 % Confidence
Model t SER
Parameter (P-value) Interval
182
Lower Upper
𝐁𝐁
Bound Bound
𝛼𝛼 -14.303 -19.087 .000 -15.850 -12.756
Log T 4.450 16.424 .000 3.891 5.010
.214
1 Log P s 3.432 4.675 .000 1.917 4.947
Log 𝜂𝜂 -.976 -1.792 .000 -2.101 .148
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.303 × 𝑇𝑇 4.450 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 3.432 × 𝜂𝜂−0.976
R = 0.959, R2 = 0.920, Adjusted R2= 0.910
Table (4-87) Regression Developed Model for Base Course.

Model t SER
𝐁𝐁
Bound Bound
𝛼𝛼 -14.310 -15.630 .000 -16.199 -12.420
Log T 4.143 11.849 .000 3.422 4.865
.276
1 Log P s 3.751 4.249 .000 1.929 5.573
Log 𝜂𝜂 -1.551 -2.206 .000 -3.002 -.100
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.310 × 𝑇𝑇 4.143 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 3.751 × 𝜂𝜂 −1.551
R = 0.928, R2 = 0.861, Adjusted R2= 0.844
4.5.6 Developed Models Validation

Excel software was used to validate the three asphalt pavement resilient
strain models (wearing, leveling and base). The actual split 50% data which has not
been used in the building of the models was used in the validation process. Figure
(4-32) through Figure (4-34) explain the relationship between the actual versus
183
estimated (developed) (𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 ); and as presented in the figures the correlation
coefficient (R) value is 0.952 for wearing course, 0.959 for leveling course and
0.941 for base course, thus the developed models is considered to be valid.
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
R2 = 0.907
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
Figure (4-32) Actual Versus Estimated Log ε r for Wearing Course.

𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
R2 = 0.920
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
Figure (4-33) Actual Versus Estimated Log ε r for Leveling Course.

184
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
R2 = 0.886
𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
Figure (4-34) Actual Versus Estimated Log ε r for Base Course.
4.5.7 Distribution of Mean Error:

For the developed models, mean values of error distribution are calculated
and it is found that the means of error distribution are equal to zero for wearing,
leveling and base course asphalt pavement models as shown in Figures (4-35)
through Figure (4-40).
185
Figure (4-35) Histogram Residual for Wearing Course Model.
Figure (4-36) Scatter Plot for Wearing Course Model.
Figure (4-37) Histogram Residual for Leveling Course Model.
186
Figure (4-38) Scatter Plot for Leveling Course Model.
Figure (4-39) Histogram Residual for Base Course Model.
187
Figure (4-40) Scatter Plot for Base Course Model.
4.6 Simplification of Plastic-Elastic Strain Models:
In order to simplify the application of the developed plastic-elastic strain
models in the three courses, the developed resilient strain models should be
applied.
4.6.1 Wearing Course Model:

The plastic-elastic strain model was:
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
= 10−5.127 × 𝑇𝑇 1.463 × 𝑁𝑁 0.684 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 0.917 × 𝜂𝜂0.266 × 𝜎𝜎 0.494
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
Dividing the above equation by 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 0.917 × 𝜂𝜂0.266 × 𝜎𝜎 0.494 the equation will be:
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
0.917 = 10−5.127 × 𝑇𝑇 1.463 × 𝑁𝑁 0.684
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟 ×𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 ×𝜂𝜂 0.266 ×𝜎𝜎 0.494
The resilient strain model for the wearing course was:

𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.425 × 𝑇𝑇 5.079 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 1.611 × 𝜂𝜂 −1.379
It becomes: 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.425 × 𝑇𝑇 5.079 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 2.528 × 𝜂𝜂 −1.113 × 𝜎𝜎 0.494
The plastic-elastic strain model will be:
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
= 10−5.127 × 𝑇𝑇 1.463 × 𝑁𝑁 0.684
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
188
4.6.2 Leveling Course Model:
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
= 10−4.880 × 𝑇𝑇 1.409 × 𝑁𝑁 0.691 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 0.960 × 𝜂𝜂0.513 × 𝜎𝜎 0.437
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
0.960 = 10−4.880 × 𝑇𝑇 1.409 × 𝑁𝑁 0.691
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟 ×𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 ×𝜂𝜂 0.513 × 𝜎𝜎 0.437
The resilient strain model for the leveling course was:

𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.303 × 𝑇𝑇 4.450 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 3.432 × 𝜂𝜂 −0.976
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
= 10−4.880 × 𝑇𝑇 1.409 × 𝑁𝑁 0.691
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
4.6.3 Base Course Model:

𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
= 10−3.989 × 𝑇𝑇 .945 × 𝑁𝑁 0.745 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 0.421 × 𝜂𝜂0.502 × 𝜎𝜎 0.623
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
0.421 = 10−3.989 × 𝑇𝑇 .945 × 𝑁𝑁 0.745
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟 ×𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 ×𝜂𝜂 0.502 × 𝜎𝜎 0.623
The resilient strain model for the base course was:

𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.310 × 𝑇𝑇 4.143 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 3.751 × 𝜂𝜂 −1.551
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
= 10−3.989 × 𝑇𝑇 .945 × 𝑁𝑁 0.745
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
Because there is no field data available; outsourcing from NCHRP

Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide, 2004 will be helped by using the
depth correction factor (𝛽𝛽𝜎𝜎3 ):
𝛽𝛽𝜎𝜎3 = (𝐶𝐶1 + 𝐶𝐶2 . 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑ℎ) × 0.328196𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ℎ
189
2
𝐶𝐶1 = −0.1039 × ℎ𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 + 2.4868 × ℎ𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 − 17.342
2
𝐶𝐶2 = 0.0172 × ℎ𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 − 1.7331 × ℎ𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 + 27.428
Where:
depth = depth to the point of strain calculation.
h AC = thickness of the asphalt layer.
By applying the depth correction factor in the three models above the
formula will be as follows:
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
= 𝛽𝛽𝜎𝜎3 × (10−5.127 × 𝑇𝑇 1.463 × 𝑁𝑁 0.684 ) Wearing course
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
= 𝛽𝛽𝜎𝜎3 × (10−4.880 × 𝑇𝑇 1.409 × 𝑁𝑁 0.691 ) Leveling course
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
= 𝛽𝛽𝜎𝜎3 × (10−3.989 × 𝑇𝑇 .945 × 𝑁𝑁 0.745 ) Base course
𝜀𝜀 𝑟𝑟
In order to obtain the values of 𝛽𝛽𝜎𝜎3 for the three models; the following thicknesses
will be substituted on the depth correction factor formula:
Wearing thickness = 2 in., Leveling thickness = 2.8 in., Base thickness = 7 in.
�𝛽𝛽𝜎𝜎3 � = 3.691, �𝛽𝛽𝜎𝜎3 � = 4.329, �𝛽𝛽𝜎𝜎3 � = 1.042.

𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
The models formulas will be:
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = 3.691 × (10−5.127 × 𝑇𝑇 1.463 × 𝑁𝑁 0.684 ) × 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 Wearing

𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = 4.329 × (10−4.880 × 𝑇𝑇 1.409 × 𝑁𝑁 0.691 ) × 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 Leveling
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = 1.042 × (10−3.989 × 𝑇𝑇 .945 × 𝑁𝑁 0.745 ) × 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 Base
190
CHAPTER FIVE
APPLICATION OF KENPAVE PROGRAM ON THE DEVELOPED

MODELS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the application of KENPAVE 2004 program on the

three developed models. The material properties, traffic and climatic inputs
required for design analysis are discussed. Data input that needed in the program
were presented as well as the output data are discussed at the end of this chapter.
5.2 Mechanistic-Empirical Approach for Design
The mechanistic empirical design approach developed under NCHRP Project

1-37A is the state-of-the-art procedure for the design of flexible and rigid pavement
structures. The mechanistic-empirical approach at the heart of the NCHRP 1-37A
methodology represents a fundamental paradigm shift for pavement design. In the
mechanistic-empirical approach, the response of the pavement defined in terms of
stresses, strains, and other parameters is analyzed by using rigorous theories of
mechanics. Critical response quantities i.e., tensile strains at the bottom of an
asphalt layer are then related empirically to pavement performance i.e., rutting.
The major steps for design are:
1. Defining the traffic, environmental, and other general design inputs for the
project.
2. Selecting a trial pavement section for analysis.
3. Defining the properties for the materials in the various pavement layers.
4. Analyzing the pavement response (temperature, stress, strain) due to traffic
loading and environmental influences.
191
5. Relating empirically critical pavement responses to damage and distress for
the pavement distresses of interest.
6. Adjusting the predicted distresses for the specified design reliability.
7. Comparing the predicted distresses at the end of design life against design
limits. If necessary, adjust the trial pavement section and repeat Steps 3 to 7
until all predicted distresses are within design limits.
5.3 Input Data
5.3.1 Traffic Loading Data
Traffic data are key inputs for the analysis and design of pavement
structures. Most existing design procedures, including all of the AASHTO Design
Guides, quantify traffic in terms of equivalent single axle loads (ESALs). The total
estimated or projected magnitude and occurrence of the various traffic loadings are
converted to the total number of passes of the equivalent standard axle loading,
usually the equivalent 80-kN (18-kip) single axle load (ESALs). The total number
of ESALs are used as the traffic loading input for design of the pavement structure.
The traffic to be used for design is the average traffic during the design period, so
the initial traffic must be multiplied by a growth factor. If n i is the total number of
load repetitions to be used in design for the ith load group, then:
𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖 = (𝑛𝑛0 )𝑖𝑖 (𝐺𝐺)(𝐷𝐷)(𝐿𝐿)(365)(𝑌𝑌) (5-1)
Where:
(𝑛𝑛0 )𝑖𝑖 = initial number of repetition per day for the ith load group.
(1+𝑟𝑟)𝑌𝑌 −1
G = the growth factor =
𝑟𝑟
r = the yearly rate of traffic growth.

192
D = the directional distribution factor (0.5 unless the traffic in two direction is
different).
L = the lane distribution factor (1 for two lane highway, 0.85 to 0.70 for two and
three lanes in each direction, respectively.
Y = the design period in year.
If the design is based on the equivalent 18-kip (80-kN) single axle load, then
the initial number of repetitions per day for the ith load group can be computed by:
(𝑝𝑝 𝑖𝑖 )(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 )(𝑇𝑇)(𝐴𝐴)

(𝑛𝑛0 )𝑖𝑖 = (5-2)
𝑌𝑌
Where:
p i = the percentage of total repetitions for the ith load group.
T = the percentage of trucks in the ADT.
A = the average number of axles per truck.
Substituting Equation (5-2) into (5-1) and summing over all load groups, the
equivalent axle load for the design lane is :
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = (∑𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖 ) (𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)(𝑇𝑇)(𝐴𝐴)(𝐺𝐺)(𝐷𝐷)(𝐿𝐿)(365) (5-3)
Where F i is the equivalent axle load factor (EALF) for the ith load group. It is
convenient to combine the first and fourth terms in Equation (5-3) to form a new
term called the truck factor:
𝑇𝑇𝑓𝑓 = (∑𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖 )(𝐴𝐴) (5-4)
193
In which T f is the truck factor, or the number of 18-kip (80-kN) single axle
load applications per truck. Thus, Equation (5-3) becomes:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = (𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)(𝑇𝑇)�𝑇𝑇𝑓𝑓 �(𝐺𝐺)(𝐷𝐷)(𝐿𝐿)(365) (5-5)
Table (5-1) Worksheet for Estimating the 18-Kip Equivalent
Single-Axle Load Application (ESAL) as an Example
Road: 2-lane road

Traffic Analysis Period = 20 years
Assumed current AADT = 3000
Directional distribution factor = 80 %
Lane distribution factor =100%
Trucks = 28%
Annual growth rate = 3.5 %
Vehicle Type % No. of Vehicles Vehicle Growth ESAL

/ Lane / Year Factor Factor Applications
P – Vehicles 72 630720 0.0008 28.28 14270
Single-Unit
Trucks:
2-axle, 4-tire 13 113880 0.003 28.28 9662
2-axle, 6-tire 6 52560 0.21 28.28 312140
3-axle or more 3 26280 0.61 28.28 445914
Tractor
Semitrailers
and
Combinations:
4-axle or less 3 26280 0.62 28.28 460778
5-axle 2 17520 1.09 28.28 540052
6-axle or more 1 8760 1.23 28.28 304708
Total = 100 876000 2087524
The Estimated Design ESAL Applications = 2.1 × 106
194
5.3.2 Temperature:
The temperature data are significant variable in the analysis of rutting in the
asphalt concrete layers of the flexible pavement specially in hot climates. Extensive
temperature data are available from the Iraqi Metrological Organization. For
Baghdad, the mean annual air temperature (MAAT) is 23◦C. Equation (5-6) has
been used in the determination of pavement temperature in each asphalt concrete
layer. Extensive effort has been spend from the Long Term Pavement Performance
(LTPP) to establish this equation. (Mohseni and Symons, 1998) has used this
equation for finding the temperature at mid depth of asphalt concrete layer.
T pav = 54.32 + 0.78T air - 0.0025Lat^2 - 15.14log (H+25)
+ Z ( 9 + 0.61 SD^2)^0.5 (5-6)
Where:
T pav = High asphalt concrete pavement temperature below surface, oC.
T air = High air temperature, oC.
Lat = Latitude of the section, degrees.
H = Depth to surface, mm.
SD= Standard deviation of the high 7day mean air temperature, oC.
Z = Standard normal distribution table, Z = 2.055 for 98% reliability.
The temperatures at the mid-depth of each asphalt concrete layer
corresponding to ambient temperature of 23◦C are shown in Table (5-2); note that
Lat = 33.23 and Z = 0 for 50 % reliability.
195
Table (5-2) Mid-Depth Layer Temperature.
Mid depth of layer

Temperature
Layer o
C
in., cm, mm.
Wearing 0.98, 2.5, 25.0 43.8
Leveling 3.35, 8.5, 85.0 38.6
Base 8.27, 21.0, 210.0 33.6
5.3.3 Pavement Structure and Material Properties

The material property inputs are required for the structural response models
used to calculate the stresses and strains in the pavement as well as the pavement
structure parameters in order to operate the KENPAVE 2004 software. The
pavement structure was treated as a multi-layer elastic system. Three asphalt
concrete layers were adopted as an input in the software, wearing, leveling and base
course. It is necessary to specify the material properties such as material stiffness as
defined by the elastic modulus (resilient modulus of elasticity) and Poisson's ratio
which are needed for the estimation of the stresses, strains and deflections response
in the pavement system under the application of traffic loading. Figure (5-1) shows
the thicknesses of the pavement structure assumed as an input parameter in the
software as a practical example.
196
Wearing Layer 5 cm
Leveling Layer 7 cm
Base Layer 18 cm
Sub-Base Layer 40 cm
Subgrade Layer ∞
Figure (5-1) Structural Components and Thicknesses for Flexible Pavement.
5.3.3.1 Asphalt Concrete Layer Properties

Shell nomograph (Huang, 2004) was used to predict the stiffness modulus of
asphalt binder. The data used as an input was:
Loading time = 10-1 sec., T Bitumen = 20 oC, Penetration = 46, T pen = 25 oC, T Ring &
Ball = 51 oC, Temperature Difference (Below T Ring & Ball ) = 31 oC.
By using these data in the nomograph, the stiffness modulus of the asphalt binder is
2 × 107 N/m2.
To find the stiffness modulus of the asphalt concrete mixture for the three
mixtures wearing, leveling and base; Shell nomograph was also used for this
purpose. Table (5-3) shows the input data as well as the stiffness modulus.
197
Table (5-3) Shell Nomograph Input Data and Stiffness Modulus for Asphalt
Concrete Mixtures.
Aggregate Binder Air void

Mix Stiffness
Mixture volume volume volume
(N/m2) psi
(V g ) % (V b ) % (V a ) %
Wearing 86 10 4 (4.2 × 109) 6.09 × 105
Leveling 85 10 5 (3.8 × 109) 5.51 × 105
Binder 85 9 6 (1.0 × 109) 1.45 × 105
Poisson ratio (ν) was also determined for each asphalt concrete layer from
the limitations presented in Table (5-4).
Table (5-4) Poisson Ratio for Different Paving Materials

(Southgate et. al. 1977).
Material Range Typical Value

Asphalt Concrete 0.3 – 0.4 0.35
Unstabilized Granular
0.3 – 0.45 0.4
Sub-base and Base
Silt Subgrade 0.35 – 0.45 0.45
Clay Subgrade 0.4 – 0.5 0.5
5.3.3.2 Sub-Base Layer Properties

The resilient modulus of subbase layer was calculated depending on the
resilient modulus of subgrade layer according to the following relationship
(Claessen et al, 1977):
Mr subbase = K . Mr subgrade (5-7)
Where:
198
K = 0.2 h0.45, (2 < K < 4).
h = the thickness of subbase layer in mm, and
M r = the resilient modulus in psi.
The second property Poisson ratio (ν) was obtained from Table (5-4).
5.3.3.3 Subgrade Layer Properties

For this layer of pavement structure; Heukelom and Klomp (1962) proposed
the following correlation between the subgrade resilient modulus (M r ) and the
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value:
M r = 1500 (CBR) (5-8)
Where
M r = the resilient modulus of subgrade layer in psi.
CBR = the California Bearing Ratio value in percent.
As in the subbase layer, the Poisson ratio (ν) was obtained from Table (5-4).
5.4 Application and Analysis of KENPAVE 2004 Program:

KENPAVE 2004 software was used for determining the maximum vertical
stresses and displacements in a multilayer system under a circular loaded area.
Figure (5-2) shows an elastic three layers system under a set of dual-tandem tires.
Each tire has a contact radius of 4.05 in and a contact pressure of 87 psi. The first
step in the analysis is to convert the three asphalt concrete layers (wearing,
leveling, base) thickness to equivalent thickness. The “method of equivalent
thicknesses” used for layered structures was first suggested by Odemark in 1949
(Ullidtz, 1979). Subsequently, their use in the analysis and performance prediction
of the pavement structure becomes widespread (Glynn, et. al. 1977; Nemesdy
et. al. 1977; Ullidtz 1979). The basic principle of the method is that the layered
system with N layers can be transformed into equivalent layer by fixing the
stiffness constant for the case under consideration. The stiffness is defined
199
(Odemark) as the product of moment of inertia and the modulus of elasticity for the
pavement section. For two layers system, the derivation of the transforming
relationship becomes as follow:
stiffness of layer (1) + stiffness of layer (2) = stiffness (equivalent layer)
EI1 + EI2 = EIeq.

(5-9)
b1h13 b 2h 32 beq.h 3eq.

E1( ) + E2 ( ) = E eq. ( )
12 12 12 (5-10)
Where:
h = layer thickness.
b = the width of pavement section.
bh3
I = moment of inertia (for rectangular section = ).
12
E = modulus of elasticity (characterized as resilient modulus).
For b 1 = b 2 = b eq.
The relation becomes: E1h13 + E 2h 32 = E eq.h 3eq. (5-11)
Divide by E eq :
E1 3 E2 3 3
h1 + h2 = heq.
Eeq. Eeq.
(5-12)
This equation can be simplified by rearranging and raising both sides of the
equation to power 1/3, which result in
E E
heq. = h1( 1 )1 / 3 + h2 ( 2 )1 / 3 (5-13)
Eeq. Eeq.
This relationship can be generalized for N layers:

200
E E E E
heq. = h1( 1 )1 / 3 + h2 ( 2 )1 / 3 + h3 ( 3 )1 / 3 + ..........hn ( n )1 / 3 (5-14)
Eeq. Eeq. Eeq. Eeq.
In the rut depth prediction methodology, Equation (5-14) was used to convert
the thicknesses of leveling and base courses into an equivalent layer thickness for
wearing course. This transformation will save the effort for testing the asphalt
concrete mixtures for both the leveling and base courses for permanent deformation
characterization, and will simplify the analysis of pavement structure and rut depth
prediction.
For the practical example, according to the resilient modulus of the layers to
be transformed (leveling and base) and that for wearing layer, the thicknesses and
the transformation factor ( f = ( E )1 / 3 ) are shown in Table (5-5) below. The

E eq.
resulting geometry of the transformed pavement section is shown in Figure (5-2).
Table (5-5) Equivalent Thicknesses.
Initial Equivalence
Transformation
Layer thickness Thickness
Factor, f
cm (inch) cm (inch)
Wearing 5 (2) 1 5 (2)
Leveling 7 (2.8) 0.967 6.8 (2.7)
Base 18 (7) 0.619 11.2 (4.3)
Total Equivalent Thickness = 23 (9)
201
Asphalt Concrete
Layer 23 cm
Sub-Base Layer 40 cm
Subgrade Layer ∞
Figure (5-2) Geometry of the Transformed Pavement Section.
Table (5-6) presents the equivalent thickness and the physical properties of
each layer in the structural pavement section used as an example for flexible
pavement in the KENPAVE 2004 software.
Table (5-6) Physical Properties and Thicknesses for the Pavement Layers
Thickness Stiffness modulus (M r ) Poisson Ratio

Layer
in (cm) psi (N/m2) (ν)
Asphalt Concrete 9 (23) 6.09 × 105 (4.2 × 109) 0.35
Sub-Base 15.75 (40) 2.3123 × 104 (15.9 × 107) 0.4
Subgrade ∞ 7800 (5.4 × 107) 0.45
In order to find the maximum vertical stress in each asphalt pavement layer
(wearing, leveling and base), nine points have been specified in the surface of the
202
pavement and six points in the middle and the bottom of each asphalt concrete
layer in the vertical direction. Figure (5-3) shows the distribution of the nine points
in the surface of asphalt pavement layer.
13.5 in
3 6 9
6.75 in
2 5 8
1 4 7
16 in
48 in
Figure (5-3) Distribution of Points at the Surface of Asphalt Pavement Layer.
The input and output data that have been obtained from the KENPAVE 2004
program are presented in Figure (5-4).
203
Figure (5-4) Input and Output Results of KENPAVE 2004 Software.
204
Figure (5-4) Input and Output Results of KENPAVE 2004 Software
(continue).
205
(continue).
206
(continue).
207
Table (5-7) presents the maximum vertical stress obtained from KENPAVE
2004 output results at the three asphalt concrete layers.
Table (5-7) Maximum Vertical Stress Obtained from KENPAVE Software.
Layer Depth, in. (cm) Maximum Vertical Stress, psi.

Wearing 0.98 (2.5) 85.182
Leveling 3.35 (8.5) 58.651
Base 8.27 (21.0) 7.228
Equations in Table (4-15) developed in Chapter Four should be applied in

order to find the rut depth in the wearing, leveling and base asphalt concrete layers.
The resilient strain models presented in chapter four will be used in the calculation
of the resilient strain for the three layers. Table (5-9) shows the input parameters
that have been used in the three models in order to determine the rut depth in each
asphalt concrete layer and to calculate the total rut depth.
Table (5-8) Plastic and Resilient Strain Models.
Layer Model
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = 3.691 × (10−5.127 × 𝑇𝑇 1.463 × 𝑁𝑁 0.684 ) × 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟
Wearing
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.425 × 𝑇𝑇 5.079 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 2.528 × 𝜂𝜂 −1.113 × 𝜎𝜎 0.494
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = 4.329 × (10−4.880 × 𝑇𝑇 1.409 × 𝑁𝑁 0.691 ) × 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟
Leveling
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.303 × 𝑇𝑇 4.450 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 4.392 × 𝜂𝜂 −0.463 × 𝜎𝜎 0.437
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = 1.042 × (10−3.989 × 𝑇𝑇 .945 × 𝑁𝑁 0.745 ) × 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟
Base
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.310 × 𝑇𝑇 4.143 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 4.172 × 𝜂𝜂 −1.049 × 𝜎𝜎 0.623
208
Table (5-9) Input Parameters and Rut Depth for Each Asphalt Concrete
Layer.
Rut
N T % 𝜼𝜼 𝝈𝝈 εr Depth,
Layer εp Depth,
ESAL o
C Ps pa-s. psi × 10-5 mm
mm
Wearing 2.1E06 43.8 4.6 0.496 85.182 75.861 0.111 50 5.559
Leveling 2.1E06 38.6 4.2 0.496 58.651 25.606 0.058 70 4.111
Base 2.1E06 33.6 3.9 0.496 7.228 2.158 0.003 180 0.589
Total 10.259
Rutting severity levels are classified according to AASHTO guide into three
levels as presented in Table (5-10):
Table (5-10) Rut Depth Criteria According to AASHTO Guide (1993).
Mean Rut Depth, mm Severity Level

6-13 Low
13-25 Medium
> 25 High
For this example, the rutting level is classified as low level because the total
rut depth in the three asphalt concrete layers is ≈ 11 mm.
209
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the limitations of materials and test procedures used in this work,
the following conclusions are drawn:
1. Three models were established for predicting the permanent deformation in

local asphalt concrete pavement layers (wearing, leveling and base) by using
regression analysis approach as follows:
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = 3.691 × (10−5.127 × 𝑇𝑇 1.463 × 𝑁𝑁 0.684 ) × 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 (Wearing)
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = 4.329 × (10−4.880 × 𝑇𝑇 1.409 × 𝑁𝑁 0.691 ) × 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 (Leveling)
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = 1.042 × (10−3.989 × 𝑇𝑇 .945 × 𝑁𝑁 0.745 ) × 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 (Base)
Where:
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 = Predicted vertical plastic strain.
T = Temperature (oC).
N = Number of load repetitions.
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = Computed vertical resilient strain.
2. The three models of vertical resilient strain (𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 ) were established for
wearing, leveling and base asphalt pavement layers by using regression
analysis approach as follows:
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.425 × 𝑇𝑇 5.079 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 2.528 × 𝜂𝜂−1.113 × 𝜎𝜎 0.494 (Wearing)
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.303 × 𝑇𝑇 4.450 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 4.392 × 𝜂𝜂−0.463 × 𝜎𝜎 0.437 (Leveling)
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = 10−14.310 × 𝑇𝑇 4.143 × 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 4.172 × 𝜂𝜂 −1.049 × 𝜎𝜎 0.623 (Base)
Where:
T = Temperature (oC).
P s = Asphalt content (%).
210
𝜂𝜂 = Asphalt binder viscosity (Pa.sec), and
𝜎𝜎 = Stress level (psi).
3. Increasing the temperature from 55 oC to 65 oC will increase the permanent
deformation by 11.520% for wearing, 10.750% for leveling and 9.815% for
base.
4. Increasing asphalt content by one percent will cause the permanent
deformation to increase by 6.557% for wearing mixture, 3.255% for leveling
mixture and 1.602% for base mixture.
5. The change of penetration grade from (60-70) to penetration grade (40-50)
leads to decrease the permanent deformation by 77.261%, 65.164% and
53.137% for wearing, leveling and base mixtures respectively.
6. The permanent deformation increases by 27.632%, 22.236% and 8.967% for
wearing, leveling and base mixtures respectively after doubling the applied
stress level.
7. The use of Regression approach for data analysis and prediction of
permanent deformation models had provided more simplicity and time
savings as compared to Artificial Neural Network approach in this research.
8. The developed models can be successfully applied for the prediction of total
rut depth of flexible pavement asphalt concrete layers as follows:
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 1 × ℎ1 + 𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 2 × ℎ2 + 𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 3 × ℎ3
Where:
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = Total rut depth of asphalt layers.
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 1 = Permanent (plastic) vertical strain in wearing layer.
ℎ1 = Thickness of wearing layer.
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 2 = Permanent (plastic) vertical strain in leveling layer.
ℎ2 = Thickness of leveling layer.
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 3 = Permanent (plastic) vertical strain in base layer.
211
ℎ3 = Thickness of base layer.
9. The developed models can be used to select proper asphalt mixture
ingredients in order to predict pavement rutting values under expected traffic
loads and environmental temperature.
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

1. Field studies are required to evaluate the field calibration coefficients as
related to laboratory coefficients, in addition to the development of depth
correction factor for local asphalt pavements.
2. The influence of additives need to be studied, in order to evaluate the
possibility of reducing rut depth of asphalt pavements by using proper
polymers.
212
REFERENCES
AASHTO Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and

Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, (2002), “ American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials”, Washington, D.C.
Abdel Aziz, Z. M., (1996), “Development of Testing Framework for
Evaluation of Rutting Resistance of Asphalt Mixes”, Al-Azhar
University, PhD Thesis.
Abdel Nabi, R.M.; Abd El Halim A.O.; and Easa S.M., (1995),
“Verification of the Role of Road Geometry on Distress of Asphalt
Pavement using the New in-situ Shear Test Machine”. Canadian
Technical Asphalt Association, Vol. (40).
Abed, A. H., (2010), “Required Criteria for Implementation of the
Superpave System in Local Pavement Design”, Ph.D Thesis, Civil
Engineering, University of Baghdad.
Ahlrich, R.C., (1996), “Influence of Aggregate Gradation and Particle
Shape/Texture on Permanent Deformation of Hot Mix Asphalt
Pavements”, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Department of
Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, Technical Report.
Ait-kadi, A.; Brahimi, B.; and Bousmina, M., (1996), “Polymer
Engineering Sciences”, 36 (12), 17241733.
Albayati, A., (2006), “ Permanent Deformation Prediction of Asphalt
Concrete Under Repeated Loading,” Ph. D Thesis, Civil
Engineering, University of Baghdad.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), (1993), AASHTO Guide of Pavement Structures,
Washington, DC.
Anderson, K.O., (1987), “Permanent Deformation Characteristics of

213
Recycled Asphalt Concrete Mixes”. Road and Transportation
Association of Canada Annual Conference, Saskatoon, 1 : B41-B66.
Anderton, G., (2002), “Physical Properties and Aging Characteristics of
Asphalt-Rubber Binders”, Department of the Army Waterways
Experiment Station, Corps of Engineering, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Arabani, M.; Mirabdolazimi, S.M.; and Sasani, A.R., (2010), “The effect
of waste tire thread mesh on the dynamic behavior of asphalt
mixtures”, Journal of Construction Building and Materials, 24:
1060-1068.
Asphalt Institute, (1994), “Superpave Asphalt Mixture Design and
Analysis”, FHWA, Washington, DC.
Asphalt Institute, (1996), “Superpave Mix Design”, Superpave Series
No.2 (SP-2).
Asphalt Institute, (2003), “Asphalt Hand Book”, Manual series No. 04, Six
Edition, Kentucky, USA.
Asphalt Institute, (2003), “Performance Graded Asphalt Binder
Specification and Testing”, Superpave Series No.1 (SP-1),
Lexington, KY: Asphalt Institute.
Attoh-Okine, N. O., (1994), “Predicting Roughness Progression in Flexible
Pavements Using Artificial Neural Networks”, Third International
Conference on Managing Pavements, Conference Proceedings, Vol.
1, pp.55-62.
Bahgat, A.; and El-Refaei, M., (1989), “Rutting Resistance as Indicated by
Shape and Surface Texture of Aggregate used in the Hot Asphaltic
Concrete Mixes”. 11th, IRF World Meeting, Seoul, Korea.
Barenberg, E.J.; and Thompson, M.R., (1992), “Calibrated Mechanistic
Structural Analysis Procedures for Pavements, Phase 2.”, Draft
214
Final Report, NCHRP Project 1-26, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, DC.
Barksdale, R., (1972), “Laboratory Evaluation of Rutting in Base Course
Materials”, Proceedings, Third International Conference on the
Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, London.
Bell, C.A.; Hicks, R.G.; and Wilson J.E., (1982), “Effect of Percent
Compaction on Asphalt Mixture Life”, A Symposium Sponsored by
ASTM, Committee D-4 on Road and Paving Materials,
Philadelphia.
Bennert, T., (2010), “Performance of Gravel Aggregates in Superpave
Mixes with 100/95 Angularity”, Center for Advanced Infrastructure
and Transportation (CAIT), New York University, Final Report.
Bolk, N.J., (1982), “Prediction of Rutting in Asphalt Pavements on the
Bases of the Creep Test”, 5th International Conference on the
Structural Design of Asphalt Pavement, University of Michigan,
Vol.(1).
Bonaquist, R.F.; and Churilla, G.J., (1988), “Effect of Load, Tire Pressure
and Tire Type on Flexible Pavement Response”, Transportation
Research Record No.(1207), pp. 207 -216.
Boyce, J. R., (1976), “The Behavior of Granular Material Under Repeated
Loading”, PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham.
Brown, E.R. and Cross, S.A. (1992), “A national study of rutting in hot
mix asphalt (HMA) pavements”, National Center for Asphalt
Technology, USA.
Brown, E.R.; Kandhal, P.S.; and Zhang, J., (2004), “Performance testing
for hot mix asphalt”, Transportation Research Circular, e-c068,
215
ISSN 0097-8515, Transportation Research Board. Washington DC.
Brown, S. F.; and Pell, P. S, (1974), “Repeated Loading of Bituminous

Materials”, CAPSA 74, National Institute for Road Research,
Republic of South Africa, Durban.
Brown, S. F.; and Snaith, M.S., (1974), “The Permanent Deformation of
Dense Bitumen Macadam Subjected to Repeated Loading”,
Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists
Technical Sessions, vol. 43, Virginia, United States of America.
Button, JW.; Perdomo, D.; and Lytton, R.L., (1990), “Influence of
Aggregate on Rutting in Asphalt Concrete Pavements”,
Transportation Research Record 1259, pp 141-152.
Carlberg, M.; Berthelot C.; and Richardson N, (2003), “Comparison of
Marshall and Superpave Gyratory Volumetric Properties of
Saskatchewan Asphalt Concrete Mixes”, Annual Conference of the
Transportation Association of Canada.
Ceylan, H.; and Gopalakrishnan, K., (2006), “Artificial Neural Network
Models Incorporating Unbound Material Nonlinearity for Rapid
Prediction of Critical Pavement Responses and Layer Moduli”,
Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University
Ames, IA, USA.
Chatti, K.; Salama, H.; and El Mohtar C., (2005), “Effect of Heavy Trucks
with Large Axle Groups on Asphalt Pavement Damage”,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan
State University, Proceedings 8th International Symposium on
Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions.
Dawley, C.B.; Hogewied B.L.; and Anderson K.O., (1990), "Mitigation of
Instability Rutting of Asphalt Concrete Pavements in Lethbridge,
216
Alberta, Canada". Association of Asphalt Paving Technology, Vol.
(59), pp. 481-509.
Dawson, A.; and Kolisoja, P., (2004), “Permanent Deformation”, Report
on Task 2.1, University of Nottingham.
Dehlen, G., (1969), “The Effect of Nonlinear Material in the Behavior of
Pavement Subjected to Traffic Loads”, Ph. D Thesis, University of
California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Denneman, E., (2007), “The Application Of Locally Developed Pavement

Temperature Prediction Algorithms In Performance Grade (PG)
Binder Selection”, Proceedings of the 26th Southern African
Transport Conference.
Drakos, C. A., (2003), “Identification Of A Physical Model To Evaluate
Rutting Performance Of Asphalt Mixtures”, PhD Thesis, Florida
University.
Eisenmann, J.; and Hilmar, A., (1987), “Influence of wheel load and
inflation pressure on the rutting effect of asphalt pavements -
Experiments and theoretical investigations”, Proceedings of the
Sixth International conference on structural design of asphalt
Pavements, Vol. 1, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
El-Mitiny, M.R., (1980), “Material Characterization and Permanent
Deformation”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University.
Emery, J.J.; and Johnston, T.H., (1992), “Rutting in the Urban Context and
its Mitigation”, Canadian Technical Asphalt Association , Vol. 32,
pp. 340-351.
European Commission, (1999), COST 333, “Development of new
pavement design method”, final report of the action, Brussels,
Belgium.
217
Faheem, A.; Bahia, H. U., (2004), “Using Gyratory Compactor to Measure
Mechanical Stability of Asphalt Mixtures”, Wisconsin Highway
Research Program 0092-01-02, Wisconsin Department of
Transportation, WHRP 05-02.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), (2003), “Distress Identification
Manual for Long Term Pavement Performance Program”, 4th
Edition, Publication No. FHWA-RD-03031, Washington, DC.
Garba, R., (2002), “Permanent Deformation Properties of Asphalt
Concrete Mixtures”, Department of Road end Railway Engineering
Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU, Ph.D
Thesis.
Gervais, F.A.; and Abd El-Halim, A.O., (1990), “Rutting of Asphalt
Overlays: Analytical and Field Studies”, Canadian Technical
Asphalt Association, Vol. (35), pp.34-45 .
Haas, R.G.; and Papagianakis, A.T., (1986), “Understanding Pavement
Rutting”, Water Loo University.
Hafeez, I., 2009, “Impact of Hot Mix Asphalt Properties on its Permanent
Deformation Behavior”, PhD Thesis, University of Engineering and
Technology, Taxila.
Hafeez, I.; Kamal, M. A.; and Mirza W., (2010), “Domains of Permanent
Coefficient Alpha and Mu for Hard Grade Asphalt Concrete
Mixtures”, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila.
Hamzah, M. O.; Jaya, R. P.; Prasetijo, J.; and Azizi, K. M., (2009),
“Effects of Temperature and Binder Type on the Dynamic Creep of
Asphaltic Concrete Incorporating Geometrically Cubical
Aggregates Subjected to Ageing”, Modern Applied Science, Vol. 3,
No.7.
218
Hjort, M.; Haraldsson, M.; and Jansen, J. M., (2008), “Road Wear from
Heavy Vehicles-an Overview”, Nordiska Vagtekniska Forbundet
Committee Vehicles and Transports.
Hofstra, A.; and Kolomp, (1972), “Permanent Deformation of Flexible
Pavements under Simulated Road Traffic Condition”, 3rd
International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt
Pavement, Univ. of Michigan, Vol. (1), pp. 613-671.
Huang, B.; Xiang S.; and Xinwei, C., (2007), “Effects of mineral fillers on
hot-mix asphalt laboratory measured properties”, International
Journal of Pavement Engineering 8:1, pp1-9.
Huang, Y, (1993), “Pavement Analysis and Design”, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
Huang, Y., (2004), “Pavement Analysis and Design”, 2nd Edition, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
Huber, G.A., (1999), “Methods To Achieve Rut-Resistance Durable
Pavements”, Synthesis of Highway Practice 274, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Jimenez, R.A., (1986), “A Look at Art of Asphaltic Mixture Design”,
Association of Asphalt Paving Technology, Vol. (55), pp. 323-345.
Kamal, M.A.; Shahzeb, F.; and Baber, Y., (2005), “Resilient Behavior of
Asphalt Concrete under repeated loading & effects of temperature”,
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.
6, pp 1329-1343.
Kandhal, P. S.; and Cooley, L. A., (2003), “Accelerated Laboratory
Rutting Tests: Evaluation of the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer”,
NCHRP Project 508 D9-17, Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C.
219
Kandhal, P. S.; and Mallick, R. B., (1999), “Evaluation of Asphalt
Pavement Analyzer for HMA Mix Design”, NCAT Report No.99-4.
Kandhal, P. S.; and Mallick, R. B., (1999), “Potential of Asphalt Pavement
Analyser (APA) to Predict Rutting of Hot Mix Asphalt”,
International Conference on Accelerated Pavement Testing,
Nevada.
Khosla, N. P.; Sadasivam, S.; and Malpass, G., (2001), “Performance
Evaluation of Fine Graded Superpave Mixtures for Surface
Cources”, HWY-2000-06, Final Report, FHWA/NC/2002-005,
North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Kim, J.; Sholar, G. A.; and Moseley, H. L., (2006), “Evaluation of
Segregation for Top-Down Cracking and Rutting Performance and
Detecting Low-Performance Segregated Mixtures”, State of Florida,
Research Report.
Kim, S.; Little, D. N.; and Masad, E., (2005), “Simple Methods to
Estimate Inherent and Stress-Induced Anisotropy of Aggregate
Base”, Transportation Research Record, 1913, Transportation
Research Board, Washington D. C. pp 24-31.
Kok, B. V.; and Kuloglu, N., (2007), “The Effects of Different Binders on
Mechanical Properties of Hot Mix Asphalt”, International Journal of
Science and Technology Volume 2, No 1, pp. 41-48, 2007 Turkey.
Laurinavicius, A.; and Oginskas, R., (2006), “Experimental Research on
the Development of Rutting in Asphalt Concrete Pavements
Reinforced with Geosynthetic Materials”, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, Vol. XII, No.4, pp 311-317.
Leahy, R., (1989), “Permanent Deformation Characteristics of Asphalt
Concrete”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland.
220
Lou, Z.; M.Gunaratne, J. J.; and Dietrich, B., (2001), “Application of
Neural Network Model to Forecast Short-Term Pavement Crack
Condition: Florida Case Study”, Journal of Infrastructure Systems,
ASCE, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 166-171.
Majidzadeh, K.; Khedr S.; and El-Majaruch, M., (1979), "Evaluation of
Permanent Deformation in Asphalt Concrete Pavement".
Transportation Research Record No.(715), pp. 11-21.
Mallick, R.B; Ahlrich, R.; and Brown, E.R., (1995), “Potential of Dynamic
Creep to Predict Rutting”.
Matthews, J. M.; and Monismith, C. L., (2003), “Effects of Aggregate
Gradation on the Creep Response of Asphalt Mixtures and
Pavement Rutting Estimates”, ASTM Special Technical
Publication, No 1147, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA., p p. 329–343.
McGennis, R. B.; Anderson, R. M.; Kennedy T.W.; and Solaimanian, M.,
(1994), “Background of Superpave Asphalt Mixture Design and
Analysis”, Publication No. FHWA-SA-95–003, FHWA, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
McGennis, R. B.; Anderson, R. M.; Kennedy, T. W.; and Solaimanian, M.,
(1995), “Background of SUPERPAVE Asphalt Mixture Design and
Analysis”, U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Report No. FHWA-SA-95-003.
McHattie, R. L.; and Elieff, J., (2001), “Cost-Effective Rut Repair
Methods”, Alaska Department of Transportation, FHWA.
Moghaddam, T. B.; Karim, M. R.; and Abdelaziz, M., (2011), “A Review
on Fatigue and Rutting Performance of Asphalt Mixes”, University
of Malaysia, Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 6(4), pp. 670-682.
Mohamed, E. H.; and Yue, Z. Q., (1994), “Criteria for Evaluation of
221
Rutting Potential Based on Repetitive Uniaxial Compression Test”,
Transportation Research Record 1454, NRCC.
Morris, W.J.; and Haas, R.C., (1972), "Designing for Rutting in Asphalt
Pavements". Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, Vol. (17), pp.
169-184.
NCHRP, (2004), "Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated
Pavement Structures," NCHRP Project 1-37A Draft Final Report,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
NCHRP, (2005), “Aggregate properties and the performance of superpave
Designed Hot Mix Asphalt”, NCHRP Report No. 539.
Owusu, A. S., (1998), “Application of Neural Networks to Modeling Thick
Asphalt Pavement Performance”, Artificial Intelligence and
Mathematical and Mathematical Methods in Pavement and
Geomechanical Systems, pp23-30.
Parker, F. and Brown, E. (1992). “Effects of Aggregate Properties on
Flexible Pavement Rutting in Alabama”, American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), Special Technical Publication
No.1147, Philadelphia, USA.
Phang, A.W., (1989), “Rutting - The Contribution of High Tire Pressure

and Remedial Measures”, 3rd IRF, Middle East Regional - Meeting,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Vol. (6).
Radziszewski, P., 2007, “Modified Asphalt Mixtures Resistance to
Permanent Deformations”, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Vol. XIII, No.4 pp 307-315.
Roberts, F.L.; Tielking, J.T.; Middleton, D.; Lytton, R.L.; and Tseng, K.,
(1985), “Effect Tire Pressures on Flexible Pavement”, Report
222
FHWA-TX-85-372-1 (TTI 372-If). Texas Transportation Institute,
Texas A & M University, College Station.
Rohatgi, V. K; and Saleh, A. K., (2006), “An Introduction to Probability
and Statistics”, John Wiely and Sons, Inc., 2nd Edition.
Saraf, C.; Marshek, K.; Chen, H.; Connell, R.; and Hudson, W.R., (1978),
“The Effect of Truck Tire Contact Distribution on the Design of
Flexible Pavements”, 6th International Conference on the Structural
Design of Asphalt Pavement, University of Michigan, Vol. (1), pp.
180-190.
Shekharan, A.R., (2000), “Pavement Performance Prediction by Artificial
Neural Networks”, Computational Intelligence Applications in
Pavement and Geomechanical Systems, pp89-98.
SHRP-A-318, (1991), “Summary Report on Permanent Deformation in
Asphalt Concrete,” Strategic Highway Research Program,
Washington, D.C.
Sousa, J., J. Craus, and C. Monismith, (1991). “Summary Report on
Permanent Deformation in Asphalt Concrete”, SHRP A/IR/91-104,
Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council,
Washington, D. C., USA.
Stephanos, P., (2007), “Implementation of the NCHRP 1-37A Design
Guide”, Final Report, Volume 2: Evaluation of Mechanistic-
Empirical Design Procedure, University of Maryland.
Suparma, L. B., (2002), “The Resistance of Permanent Deformation
Behavior of the Asphaltic Concrete (AC) Mixture Containing
Recycled Polyethylene Plastics Packaging Waste Aggregate
Replacement (AC-Plastiphalts)”.
Tarefder, R.A.; Zaman, M.; and Hobson, K., (2003), “A Laboratory and
223
statistical evaluation of factors affecting rutting”, International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, Volume 4 Number 1, 59-68.
Thyagarajan, S., (2009), “Improvements To Strain Computation And
Reliability Analysis of Flexible Pavements In The Mechanistic-
Empirical Pavement Design Guide”, PhD Thesis, Washington State
University.
Togunde, O. P., (2008), “Low Temperature Investigations on Asphalt
Binder Performance-A Case Study on Highway 417 Trial Sections”,
M.Sc. Thesis, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Van De Loo, P.J., (1974), “Creep Testing: A Simple Tool to Judge Asphalt
Mix Stability”, Association of Asphalt Paving Technology, Vol.
(43), pp. 253-284.
Van Der Poel, C., (1954), “A General System Describing the Visco-Elastic
Properties of Bitumens and Its Relation to Routine Test Data”,
Journal of Applied Chemistry, Vol. 4, pp 221-236.
Vavrik, WR; Pine, WJ; Huber, G; Carpenter, SH; and Bailey, R., “The
Bailey Method of Gradation Evaluation: The Influence of
Aggregate Gradation and Packing Characteristics on Voids in the
Mineral Aggregate”. Journal of the Association of Asphalt paving
Technology, Volume 70, 2001.
Von, H. L. Q.; and Moulthrop, J. S., (2007), “Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide Flexible Pavement Performance Prediction
Models For Montana: Volume Ii Reference Manual”, FHWA/MT-
07-008/8158-2, State of Montana Department of Transportation.
Wu, S.; and Ye, Q., (2007), “Investigation on the High Temperature
Properties of Asphalt Mixtures Containing Mineral Fibers”, Wuhan
University of Technology, China.
224
Yang, J.; John, J. L; Gunaratne, M.; and Xiang, Q., (2003), “Overall
Pavement Condition Forecasting Using Neural Networks – An
Application To Florida Highway Network”, 82th Annual Meeting of
Transportation Research Board, Washington D. C.
Yassoub, N., (2005), “Prediction Model of Rutting Potential in Flexible
Pavements,” Ph. D Thesis, Civil Engineering, University of
Baghdad.
Zahw, M.A., (1990). "A Study of Constituents of Some Types and Grades
of Asphalt Cement as a Cause for Rutting of Hot Asphaltic
Concrete". M.Sc. Al-Azhar University.
Zahw, M. A., (1996), “Development Of Testing Framework For
Evaluation Of Rutting Resistance Of Asphalt Mixes”, PhD Thesis.
Zaniewski, J. P.; and Srinivasan, G., (2004), “Evaluation of Indirect
Tensile Strength to Identify Asphalt Concrete Rutting Potential”,
Asphalt Technology Program, West Virginia University,
Morgantown.
Zelelew, H. M., (2008), “Simulation of the Permanent Deformation of
Asphalt Concrete Mixtures Using Discrete Element Method
(DEM)”, PhD Thesis, Washington State University.
Zhao, Y., (2002), “Permanent Deformation Characterization of Asphalt
Concrete Using a Viscoelastoplastic Model, Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Ziari, H.; Mahmud, A.; and Mohammad M. K., (2007), “Resilient
Behavior of Hot Mixed and Crack Sealed Asphalt Concrete under
Repeated Loading” Iran Science and Technology University, ISSN
1392-8619 print/ISSN 1822-3613 online, Vol. XIII, pp 56-60.
225
APPENDIX
Wearing Mixture Specimens Data

𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
No. N T Ps 𝜼𝜼 𝝈𝝈 Av P seff. �𝜺𝜺𝒓𝒓
1 1 65 4.1 0.496 13 7.334 3.681 0.018
2 10 65 4.1 0.496 13 7.334 3.681 0.127
3 100 65 4.1 0.496 13 7.334 3.681 0.809
4 500 65 4.1 0.496 13 7.334 3.681 2.766
5 1000 65 4.1 0.496 13 7.334 3.681 4.560
6 1 65 4.6 0.496 13 7.063 4.178 0.018
7 10 65 4.6 0.496 13 7.063 4.178 0.130
8 100 65 4.6 0.496 13 7.063 4.178 0.816
9 500 65 4.6 0.496 13 7.063 4.178 2.792
10 1000 65 4.6 0.496 13 7.063 4.178 4.602
11 1 65 5.6 0.496 13 7.812 5.188 0.019
12 10 65 5.6 0.496 13 7.812 5.188 0.133
13 100 65 5.6 0.496 13 7.812 5.188 0.829
14 500 65 5.6 0.496 13 7.812 5.188 2.831
15 1000 65 5.6 0.496 13 7.812 5.188 4.666
16 1 65 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.231 3.681 0.013
17 10 65 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.231 3.681 0.102
18 100 65 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.231 3.681 0.714
19 500 65 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.231 3.681 2.606
20 1000 65 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.231 3.681 4.497
21 1 65 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.345 4.178 0.014
22 10 65 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.345 4.178 0.103
23 100 65 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.345 4.178 0.722
24 500 65 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.345 4.178 2.624
25 1000 65 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.345 4.178 4.539
26 1 65 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.574 5.188 0.014
27 10 65 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.574 5.188 0.105
28 100 65 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.574 5.188 0.732
29 500 65 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.574 5.188 2.648
30 1000 65 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.574 5.188 4.581
31 1 55 4.1 0.496 13 5.959 3.681 0.020
32 10 55 4.1 0.496 13 5.959 3.681 0.128
33 100 55 4.1 0.496 13 5.959 3.681 0.672
34 500 55 4.1 0.496 13 5.959 3.681 2.137
35 1000 55 4.1 0.496 13 5.959 3.681 3.491
36 1 55 4.6 0.496 13 6.856 4.178 0.021
37 10 55 4.6 0.496 13 6.856 4.178 0.130
38 100 55 4.6 0.496 13 6.856 4.178 0.679
39 500 55 4.6 0.496 13 6.856 4.178 2.177
40 1000 55 4.6 0.496 13 6.856 4.178 3.531
41 1 55 5.6 0.496 13 6.301 5.188 0.022
42 10 55 5.6 0.496 13 6.301 5.188 0.131
43 100 55 5.6 0.496 13 6.301 5.188 0.685
44 500 55 5.6 0.496 13 6.301 5.188 2.192
45 1000 55 5.6 0.496 13 6.301 5.188 3.564
46 1 55 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.334 3.681 0.018
47 10 55 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.334 3.681 0.097
48 100 55 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.334 3.681 0.515
49 500 55 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.334 3.681 1.555
50 1000 55 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.334 3.681 2.437
51 2000 55 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.334 3.681 3.491
52 1 55 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.808 4.178 0.019
53 10 55 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.808 4.178 0.103
54 100 55 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.808 4.178 0.539
1
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
55 500 55 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.808 4.178 1.621
56 1000 55 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.808 4.178 2.558
57 2000 55 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.808 4.178 3.689
58 1 55 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.527 5.188 0.020
59 10 55 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.527 5.188 0.110
60 100 55 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.527 5.188 0.559
61 500 55 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.527 5.188 1.659
62 1000 55 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.527 5.188 2.636
63 2000 55 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.527 5.188 3.775
64 1 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 0.023
65 10 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 0.112
66 100 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 0.613
67 500 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 2.027
68 1000 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 3.419
69 2000 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 5.597
70 3000 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 7.063
71 4000 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 8.109
72 5000 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 9.3756
73 6000 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 10.764
74 7000 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 12.022
75 8000 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 13.273
76 9000 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 14.621
77 10000 40 4.1 0.496 13 7.156 3.681 15.631
78 1 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 0.028
79 10 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 0.130
80 100 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 0.683
81 500 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 2.259
82 1000 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 3.784
83 2000 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 6.208
84 3000 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 7.852
85 4000 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 8.994
86 5000 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 10.351
87 6000 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 11.885
88 7000 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 13.243
89 8000 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 14.689
90 9000 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 16.143
91 10000 40 4.6 0.496 13 6.283 4.178 17.258
92 1 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 0.032
93 10 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 0.149
94 100 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 0.736
95 500 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 2.404
96 1000 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 4.008
97 2000 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 6.531
98 3000 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 8.222
99 4000 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 9.462
100 5000 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 10.839
101 6000 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 12.445
102 7000 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 13.867
103 8000 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 15.381
104 9000 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 16.904
105 10000 40 5.6 0.496 13 4.414 5.188 18.113
106 1 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 0.020
107 10 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 0.092
108 100 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 0.439
109 500 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 1.250
110 1000 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 1.963
111 2000 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 3.126
112 3000 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 4.120
113 4000 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 5.188
2
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
114 5000 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 5.942
115 6000 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 6.637
116 7000 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 7.413
117 8000 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 7.979
118 9000 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 8.317
119 10000 40 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.036 3.681 8.709
120 1 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 0.027
121 10 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 0.103
122 100 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 0.483
123 500 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 1.361
124 1000 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 2.137
125 2000 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 3.404
126 3000 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 4.487
127 4000 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 5.623
128 5000 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 6.441
129 6000 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 7.194
130 7000 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 8.035
131 8000 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 8.649
132 9000 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 9.015
133 10000 40 4.6 0.496 6.5 5.648 4.178 9.440
134 1 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 0.032
135 10 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 0.117
136 100 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 0.516
137 500 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 1.448
138 1000 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 2.243
139 2000 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 3.572
140 3000 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 4.698
141 4000 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 5.888
142 5000 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 6.745
143 6000 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 7.533
144 7000 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 8.433
145 8000 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 9.057
146 9000 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 9.594
147 10000 40 5.6 0.496 6.5 3.707 5.188 9.862
148 1 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 0.016
149 10 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 0.053
150 100 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 0.203
151 500 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 0.561
152 1000 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 0.812
153 2000 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 1.185
154 3000 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 1.588
155 4000 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 1.918
156 5000 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 2.197
157 6000 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 2.494
158 7000 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 2.728
159 8000 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 2.904
160 9000 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 3.040
161 10000 25 4.1 0.496 13 7.111 3.681 3.118
162 1 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 0.022
163 10 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 0.081
164 100 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 0.247
165 500 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 0.672
166 1000 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 0.970
167 2000 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 1.383
168 3000 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 1.857
169 4000 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 2.233
170 5000 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 2.576
171 6000 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 2.904
172 7000 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 3.191
3
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
173 8000 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 3.380
174 9000 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 3.539
175 10000 25 4.6 0.496 13 6.007 4.178 3.630
176 1 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 0.034
177 10 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 0.125
178 100 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 0.389
179 500 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 0.916
180 1000 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 1.336
181 2000 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 1.866
182 3000 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 2.494
183 4000 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 2.999
184 5000 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 3.443
185 6000 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 3.881
186 7000 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 4.275
187 8000 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 4.539
188 9000 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 4.742
189 10000 25 5.6 0.496 13 4.257 5.188 4.841
190 1 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 0.015
191 10 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 0.054
192 100 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 0.171
193 500 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 0.444
194 1000 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 0.594
195 2000 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 0.853
196 3000 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 1.054
197 4000 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 1.216
198 5000 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 1.312
199 6000 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 1.428
200 7000 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 1.573
201 8000 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 1.717
202 9000 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 1.857
203 10000 25 4.1 0.496 6.5 7.336 3.681 1.999
204 1 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 0.019
205 10 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 0.065
206 100 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 0.209
207 500 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 0.490
208 1000 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 0.709
209 2000 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 0.981
210 3000 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 1.166
211 4000 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 1.345
212 5000 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 1.496
213 6000 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 1.621
214 7000 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 1.757
215 8000 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 1.918
216 9000 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 2.060
217 10000 25 4.6 0.496 6.5 6.755 4.178 2.172
218 1 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 0.025
219 10 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 0.078
220 00 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 0.263
221 500 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 0.625
222 1000 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 0.912
223 2000 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 1.241
224 3000 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 1.455
225 4000 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 1.640
226 5000 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 1.815
227 6000 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 1.967
228 7000 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 2.167
229 8000 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 2.338
230 9000 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 2.506
231 10000 25 5.6 0.496 6.5 4.568 5.188 2.654
4
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
232 1 65 4.1 0.35 13 6.319 3.681 0.016
233 10 65 4.1 0.35 13 6.319 3.681 0.099
234 100 65 4.1 0.35 13 6.319 3.681 0.533
235 500 65 4.1 0.35 13 6.319 3.681 1.901
236 1000 65 4.1 0.35 13 6.319 3.681 2.971
237 1 65 4.6 0.35 13 5.386 4.178 0.016
238 10 65 4.6 0.35 13 5.386 4.178 0.1
239 100 65 4.6 0.35 13 5.386 4.178 0.535
240 500 65 4.6 0.35 13 5.386 4.178 1.595
241 1000 65 4.6 0.35 13 5.386 4.178 2.703
242 1 65 5.6 0.35 13 3.440 5.188 0.016
243 10 65 5.6 0.35 13 3.440 5.188 0.100
244 100 65 5.6 0.35 13 3.440 5.188 0.538
245 500 65 5.6 0.35 13 3.440 5.188 1.603
246 1000 65 5.6 0.35 13 3.440 5.188 2.716
247 1 65 4.1 0.35 6.5 5.657 3.681 0.011
248 10 65 4.1 0.35 6.5 5.657 3.681 0.079
249 100 65 4.1 0.35 6.5 5.657 3.681 0.516
250 500 65 4.1 0.35 6.5 5.657 3.681 1.798
251 1000 65 4.1 0.35 6.5 5.657 3.681 3.191
252 1 65 4.6 0.35 6.5 7.285 4.178 0.011
253 10 65 4.6 0.35 6.5 7.285 4.178 0.079
254 100 65 4.6 0.35 6.5 7.285 4.178 0.517
255 500 65 4.6 0.35 6.5 7.285 4.178 1.803
256 1000 65 4.6 0.35 6.5 7.285 4.178 3.198
257 1 65 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.274 5.188 0.011
258 10 65 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.274 5.188 0.080
259 100 65 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.274 5.188 0.521
260 500 65 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.274 5.188 1.811
261 1000 65 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.274 5.188 3.221
262 1 55 4.1 0.35 13 6.470 3.681 0.017
263 10 55 4.1 0.35 13 6.470 3.681 0.100
264 100 55 4.1 0.35 13 6.470 3.681 0.609
265 500 55 4.1 0.35 13 6.470 3.681 2.128
266 1000 55 4.1 0.35 13 6.470 3.681 3.564
267 1 55 4.6 0.35 13 5.261 4.178 0.017
268 10 55 4.6 0.35 13 5.261 4.178 0.1
269 100 55 4.6 0.35 13 5.261 4.178 0.613
270 500 55 4.6 0.35 13 5.261 4.178 2.147
271 1000 55 4.6 0.35 13 5.261 4.178 3.580
272 1 55 5.6 0.35 13 3.770 5.188 0.0179
273 10 55 5.6 0.35 13 3.770 5.188 0.099
274 100 55 5.6 0.35 13 3.770 5.188 0.609
275 500 55 5.6 0.35 13 3.770 5.188 2.128
276 1000 55 5.6 0.35 13 3.770 5.188 3.556
277 1 55 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.117 3.681 0.011
278 10 55 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.117 3.681 0.078
279 100 55 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.117 3.681 0.433
280 500 55 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.117 3.681 1.674
281 1000 55 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.117 3.681 2.971
282 2000 55 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.117 3.681 5.495
283 3000 55 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.117 3.681 7.396
284 1 55 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.047 4.178 0.011
285 10 55 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.047 4.178 0.079
286 100 55 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.047 4.178 0.439
287 500 55 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.047 4.178 1.698
288 1000 55 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.047 4.178 3.006
289 2000 55 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.047 4.178 5.546
290 3000 55 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.047 4.178 7.481
5
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
291 1 55 5.6 0.35 6.5 3.926 5.188 0.012
292 10 55 5.6 0.35 6.5 3.926 5.188 0.081
293 100 55 5.6 0.35 6.5 3.926 5.188 0.448
294 500 55 5.6 0.35 6.5 3.926 5.188 1.706
295 1000 55 5.6 0.35 6.5 3.926 5.188 3.026
296 2000 55 5.6 0.35 6.5 3.926 5.188 5.584
297 3000 55 5.6 0.35 6.5 3.926 5.188 7.516
298 1 40 4.1 0.35 13 6.948 3.681 0.016
299 10 40 4.1 0.35 13 6.948 3.681 0.093
300 100 40 4.1 0.35 13 6.948 3.681 0.477
301 500 40 4.1 0.35 13 6.948 3.681 1.603
302 1000 40 4.1 0.35 13 6.948 3.681 2.958
303 2000 40 4.1 0.35 13 6.948 3.681 4.830
304 3000 40 4.1 0.35 13 6.948 3.681 5.970
305 1 40 4.6 0.35 13 5.533 4.178 0.018
306 10 40 4.6 0.35 13 5.533 4.178 0.1
307 100 40 4.6 0.35 13 5.533 4.178 0.494
308 500 40 4.6 0.35 13 5.533 4.178 1.648
309 1000 40 4.6 0.35 13 5.533 4.178 3.040
310 2000 40 4.6 0.35 13 5.533 4.178 4.965
311 3000 40 4.6 0.35 13 5.533 4.178 6.151
312 1 40 5.6 0.35 13 3.780 5.188 0.020
313 10 40 5.6 0.35 13 3.780 5.188 0.107
314 100 40 5.6 0.35 13 3.780 5.188 0.523
315 500 40 5.6 0.35 13 3.780 5.188 1.733
316 1000 40 5.6 0.35 13 3.780 5.188 3.184
317 2000 40 5.6 0.35 13 3.780 5.188 5.199
318 3000 40 5.6 0.35 13 3.780 5.188 6.441
319 1 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 0.014
320 10 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 0.069
321 100 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 0.311
322 500 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 1.061
323 1000 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 1.698
324 2000 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 3.013
325 3000 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 3.775
326 4000 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 4.436
327 5000 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 4.988
328 6000 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 5.571
329 7000 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 6.039
330 8000 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 6.309
331 9000 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 6.606
332 10000 40 4.1 0.35 6.5 7.892 3.681 6.902
333 1 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 0.017
334 10 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 0.079
335 100 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 0.350
336 500 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 1.188
337 1000 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 1.883
338 2000 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 3.341
339 3000 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 4.178
340 4000 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 4.943
341 5000 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 5.546
342 6000 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 6.223
343 7000 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 6.698
344 8000 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 6.982
345 9000 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 7.328
346 10000 40 4.6 0.35 6.5 4.609 4.178 7.638
347 1 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 0.022
348 10 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 0.092
349 100 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 0.373
6
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
350 500 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 1.250
351 1000 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 1.972
352 2000 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 3.499
353 3000 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 4.375
354 4000 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 5.164
355 5000 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 5.794
356 6000 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 6.501
357 7000 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 7.014
358 8000 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 7.294
359 9000 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 7.655
360 10000 40 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.267 5.188 8.016
361 1 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 0.012
362 10 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 0.046
363 100 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 0.185
364 500 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 0.543
365 1000 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 0.957
366 2000 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 1.442
367 3000 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 1.870
368 4000 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 2.118
369 5000 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 2.328
370 6000 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 2.517
371 7000 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 2.760
372 8000 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 2.951
373 9000 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 3.133
374 10000 25 4.1 0.35 13 7.195 3.681 3.357
375 1 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 0.017
376 10 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 0.062
377 100 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 0.237
378 500 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 0.622
379 1000 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 1.073
380 2000 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 1.610
381 3000 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 2.094
382 4000 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 2.360
383 5000 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 2.600
384 6000 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 2.844
385 7000 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 3.097
386 8000 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 3.288
387 9000 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 3.499
388 10000 25 4.6 0.35 13 6.755 4.178 3.767
389 1 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 0.023
390 10 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 0.085
391 100 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 0.319
392 500 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 0.841
393 1000 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 1.364
394 2000 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 2.023
395 3000 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 2.570
396 4000 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 2.944
397 5000 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 3.303
398 6000 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 3.758
399 7000 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 4.092
400 8000 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 4.345
401 9000 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 4.634
402 10000 25 5.6 0.35 13 4.539 5.188 4.977
403 1 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 0.011
404 10 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 0.040
405 100 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 0.159
406 500 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 0.397
407 1000 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 0.561
408 2000 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 0.796
7
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
409 3000 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 1.044
410 4000 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 1.221
411 5000 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 1.399
412 6000 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 1.566
413 7000 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 1.753
414 8000 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 1.949
415 9000 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 2.108
416 10000 25 4.1 0.35 6.5 6.557 3.681 2.223
417 1 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 0.013
418 10 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 0.050
419 100 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 0.197
420 500 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 0.469
421 1000 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 0.674
422 2000 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 1.009
423 3000 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 1.241
424 4000 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 1.438
425 5000 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 1.644
426 6000 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 1.845
427 7000 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 2.055
428 8000 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 2.280
429 9000 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 2.466
430 10000 25 4.6 0.35 6.5 6.119 4.178 2.624
431 1 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 0.021
432 10 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 0.062
433 100 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 0.241
434 500 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 0.575
435 1000 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 0.790
436 2000 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 1.216
437 3000 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 1.520
438 4000 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 1.737
439 5000 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 1.936
440 6000 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 2.098
441 7000 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 2.301
442 8000 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 2.535
443 9000 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 2.747
444 10000 25 5.6 0.35 6.5 4.165 5.188 2.890
Leveling Mixture Specimens Data

𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
1 1 65 3.7 0.496 13 6.194 3.278 0.018
2 10 65 3.7 0.496 13 6.194 3.278 0.124
3 100 65 3.7 0.496 13 6.194 3.278 0.950
4 500 65 3.7 0.496 13 6.194 3.278 3.706
5 1000 65 3.7 0.496 13 6.194 3.278 5.508
6 1 65 4.2 0.496 13 4.592 3.780 0.019
7 10 65 4.2 0.496 13 4.592 3.780 0.139
8 100 65 4.2 0.496 13 4.592 3.780 1.076
9 500 65 4.2 0.496 13 4.592 3.780 3.990
10 1000 65 4.2 0.496 13 4.592 3.780 5.902
11 1 65 5.2 0.496 13 2.936 4.785 0.022
12 10 65 5.2 0.496 13 2.936 4.785 0.157
13 100 65 5.2 0.496 13 2.936 4.785 1.218
14 500 65 5.2 0.496 13 2.936 4.785 4.355
15 1000 65 5.2 0.496 13 2.936 4.785 6.353
16 1 65 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.500 3.278 0.013
17 10 65 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.500 3.278 0.093
8
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
18 100 65 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.500 3.278 0.698
19 500 65 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.500 3.278 2.773
20 1000 65 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.500 3.278 4.797
21 1 65 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.109 3.780 0.014
22 10 65 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.109 3.780 0.1
23 100 65 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.109 3.780 0.741
24 500 65 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.109 3.780 2.944
25 1000 65 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.109 3.780 5.046
26 1 65 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.721 4.785 0.016
27 10 65 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.721 4.785 0.106
28 100 65 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.721 4.785 0.812
29 500 65 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.721 4.785 3.147
30 1000 65 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.721 4.785 5.395
31 1 55 3.7 0.496 13 5.254 3.278 0.020
32 10 55 3.7 0.496 13 5.254 3.278 0.138
33 100 55 3.7 0.496 13 5.254 3.278 0.790
34 500 55 3.7 0.496 13 5.254 3.278 2.703
35 1000 55 3.7 0.496 13 5.254 3.278 4.395
36 1 55 4.2 0.496 13 4.321 3.780 0.020
37 10 55 4.2 0.496 13 4.321 3.780 0.139
38 100 55 4.2 0.496 13 4.321 3.780 0.810
39 500 55 4.2 0.496 13 4.321 3.780 2.754
40 1000 55 4.2 0.496 13 4.321 3.780 4.466
41 1 55 5.2 0.496 13 2.315 4.785 0.021
42 10 55 5.2 0.496 13 2.315 4.785 0.141
43 100 55 5.2 0.496 13 2.315 4.785 0.845
44 500 55 5.2 0.496 13 2.315 4.785 2.798
45 1000 55 5.2 0.496 13 2.315 4.785 4.508
46 1 55 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.383 3.278 0.013
47 10 55 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.383 3.278 0.073
48 100 55 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.383 3.278 0.363
49 500 55 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.383 3.278 1.300
50 1000 55 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.383 3.278 1.949
51 2000 55 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.383 3.278 3.076
52 1 55 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.121 3.780 0.017
53 10 55 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.121 3.780 0.1
54 100 55 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.121 3.780 0.474
55 500 55 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.121 3.780 1.633
56 1000 55 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.121 3.780 2.443
57 1 55 5.2 0.496 6.5 1.866 4.785 0.020
58 10 55 5.2 0.496 6.5 1.866 4.785 0.135
59 100 55 5.2 0.496 6.5 1.866 4.785 0.615
60 500 55 5.2 0.496 6.5 1.866 4.785 1.958
61 1000 55 5.2 0.496 6.5 1.866 4.785 2.818
62 2000 55 5.2 0.496 6.5 1.866 4.785 5.370
63 1 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 0.027
64 10 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 0.124
65 100 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 0.558
66 500 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 1.336
67 1000 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 2.208
68 2000 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 3.499
69 3000 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 4.666
70 4000 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 7.079
71 5000 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 7.834
72 6000 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 9.977
73 7000 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 10.115
74 8000 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 11.220
75 9000 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 11.455
76 10000 40 3.7 0.496 13 5.410 3.278 12.647
9
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
77 1 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 0.038
78 10 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 0.181
79 100 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 0.695
80 500 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 1.896
81 1000 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 2.831
82 2000 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 4.207
83 3000 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 5.223
84 4000 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 7.261
85 5000 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 8.892
86 6000 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 10.115
87 7000 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 10.375
88 8000 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 12.331
89 9000 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 11.271
90 10000 40 4.2 0.496 13 4.965 3.780 11.721
91 1 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 0.067
92 10 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 0.266
93 100 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 1.267
94 500 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 3.061
95 1000 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 4.226
96 2000 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 6.338
97 3000 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 7.961
98 4000 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 11.994
99 5000 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 13.365
100 6000 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 15.170
101 7000 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 15.488
102 8000 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 18.365
103 9000 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 16.826
104 10000 40 5.2 0.496 13 2.428 4.785 17.579
105 1 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 0.024
106 10 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 0.107
107 100 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 0.476
108 500 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 1.517
109 1000 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 2.338
110 2000 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 3.467
111 3000 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 4.797
112 4000 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 5.623
113 5000 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 6.591
114 6000 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 7.533
115 7000 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 8.128
116 8000 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 10.864
117 9000 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 11.168
118 10000 40 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.437 3.278 11.885
119 1 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 0.031
120 10 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 0.130
121 100 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 0.568
122 500 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 1.725
123 1000 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 2.666
124 2000 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 3.981
125 3000 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 5.636
126 4000 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 6.441
127 5000 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 7.620
128 6000 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 8.550
129 7000 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 9.418
130 8000 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 12.445
131 9000 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 12.823
132 10000 40 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.540 3.780 13.365
133 1 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 0.036
134 10 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 0.156
135 100 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 0.642
10
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
136 500 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 1.981
137 1000 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 2.944
138 2000 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 4.425
139 3000 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 6.367
140 4000 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 7.261
141 5000 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 8.609
142 6000 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 9.527
143 7000 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 10.495
144 8000 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 10.914
145 9000 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 13.963
146 10000 40 5.2 0.496 6.5 4.111 4.785 14.723
147 1 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 0.016
148 10 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 0.062
149 100 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 0.242
150 500 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 0.571
151 1000 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 0.868
152 2000 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 1.210
153 3000 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 1.482
154 4000 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 1.690
155 5000 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 2.013
156 6000 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 2.157
157 7000 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 2.460
158 8000 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 2.511
159 9000 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 2.924
160 10000 25 3.7 0.496 13 5.520 3.278 3.228
161 1 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 0.023
162 10 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 0.075
163 100 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 0.289
164 500 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 0.669
165 1000 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 1.032
166 2000 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 1.422
167 3000 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 1.753
168 4000 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 2.032
169 5000 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 2.387
170 6000 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 2.540
171 7000 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 2.884
172 8000 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 2.937
173 9000 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 3.427
174 10000 25 4.2 0.496 13 5.076 3.780 3.810
175 1 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 0.028
176 10 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 0.092
177 100 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 0.316
178 500 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 0.731
179 1000 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 1.099
180 2000 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 1.520
181 3000 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 1.853
182 4000 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 2.157
183 5000 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 2.529
184 6000 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 2.685
185 7000 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 3.047
186 8000 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 3.104
187 9000 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 3.605
188 10000 25 5.2 0.496 13 3.527 4.785 4.008
189 1 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 0.011
190 10 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 0.037
191 100 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 0.158
192 500 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 0.356
193 1000 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 0.587
194 2000 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 0.926
11
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
195 3000 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 1.288
196 4000 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 1.548
197 5000 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 1.892
198 6000 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 2.137
199 7000 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 2.208
200 8000 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 2.360
201 9000 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 2.741
202 10000 25 3.7 0.496 6.5 5.610 3.278 2.760
203 1 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 0.018
204 10 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 0.053
205 100 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 0.213
206 500 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 0.493
207 1000 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 0.853
208 2000 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 1.247
209 3000 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 1.717
210 4000 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 2.074
211 5000 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 2.506
212 6000 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 2.811
213 7000 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 2.910
214 8000 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 3.111
215 9000 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 3.572
216 10000 25 4.2 0.496 6.5 4.922 3.780 3.614
217 1 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 0.025
218 10 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 0.076
219 100 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 0.271
220 500 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 0.602
221 1000 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 0.997
222 2000 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 1.452
223 3000 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 1.909
224 4000 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 2.338
225 5000 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 2.824
226 6000 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 3.198
227 7000 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 3.258
228 8000 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 3.475
229 9000 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 3.126
230 10000 25 5.2 0.496 6.5 2.843 4.785 4.092
231 1 65 3.7 0.35 13 6.246 3.278 0.013
232 10 65 3.7 0.35 13 6.246 3.278 0.095
233 100 65 3.7 0.35 13 6.246 3.278 0.613
234 500 65 3.7 0.35 13 6.246 3.278 2.152
235 1000 65 3.7 0.35 13 6.246 3.278 3.243
236 1 65 4.2 0.35 13 4.572 3.780 0.013
237 10 65 4.2 0.35 13 4.572 3.780 0.102
238 100 65 4.2 0.35 13 4.572 3.780 0.654
239 500 65 4.2 0.35 13 4.572 3.780 2.301
240 1000 65 4.2 0.35 13 4.572 3.780 3.427
241 1 65 5.2 0.35 13 2.841 4.785 0.014
242 10 65 5.2 0.35 13 2.841 4.785 0.108
243 100 65 5.2 0.35 13 2.841 4.785 0.671
244 500 65 5.2 0.35 13 2.841 4.785 2.371
245 1000 65 5.2 0.35 13 2.841 4.785 3.523
246 1 65 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.605 3.278 0.010
247 10 65 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.605 3.278 0.066
248 100 65 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.605 3.278 0.438
249 500 65 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.605 3.278 1.663
250 1000 65 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.605 3.278 3.090
251 1 65 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.858 3.780 0.011
252 10 65 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.858 3.780 0.072
253 100 65 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.858 3.780 0.469
12
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
254 500 65 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.858 3.780 1.761
255 1000 65 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.858 3.780 3.288
256 1 65 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.971 4.785 0.012
257 10 65 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.971 4.785 0.080
258 100 65 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.971 4.785 0.535
259 500 65 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.971 4.785 1.940
260 1000 65 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.971 4.785 3.630
261 1 55 3.7 0.35 13 6.031 3.278 0.014
262 10 55 3.7 0.35 13 6.031 3.278 0.093
263 100 55 3.7 0.35 13 6.031 3.278 0.538
264 500 55 3.7 0.35 13 6.031 3.278 1.790
265 1000 55 3.7 0.35 13 6.031 3.278 2.824
266 1 55 4.2 0.35 13 4.986 3.780 0.015
267 10 55 4.2 0.35 13 4.986 3.780 0.102
268 100 55 4.2 0.35 13 4.986 3.780 0.552
269 500 55 4.2 0.35 13 4.986 3.780 1.832
270 1000 55 4.2 0.35 13 4.986 3.780 2.884
271 1 55 5.2 0.35 13 2.174 4.785 0.016
272 10 55 5.2 0.35 13 2.174 4.785 0.111
273 100 55 5.2 0.35 13 2.174 4.785 0.613
274 500 55 5.2 0.35 13 2.174 4.785 1.972
275 1000 55 5.2 0.35 13 2.174 4.785 3.118
276 1 55 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.047 3.278 0.013
277 10 55 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.047 3.278 0.059
278 100 55 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.047 3.278 0.302
279 500 55 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.047 3.278 1.042
280 1000 55 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.047 3.278 1.745
281 2000 55 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.047 3.278 2.697
282 3000 55 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.047 3.278 3.411
283 1 55 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.347 3.780 0.014
284 10 55 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.347 3.780 0.062
285 100 55 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.347 3.780 0.365
286 500 55 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.347 3.780 1.227
287 1000 55 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.347 3.780 2.041
288 2000 55 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.347 3.780 3.155
289 3000 55 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.347 3.780 3.999
290 4000 55 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.347 3.780 4.797
291 5000 55 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.347 3.780 5.741
292 6000 55 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.347 3.780 6.606
293 1 55 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.509 4.785 0.018
294 10 55 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.509 4.785 0.085
295 100 55 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.509 4.785 0.436
296 500 55 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.509 4.785 1.364
297 1000 55 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.509 4.785 2.290
298 2000 55 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.509 4.785 3.499
299 3000 55 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.509 4.785 4.436
300 4000 55 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.509 4.785 5.345
301 5000 55 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.509 4.785 6.382
302 1 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 0.029
303 10 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 0.123
304 100 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 0.659
305 500 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 2.152
306 1000 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 3.311
307 2000 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 4.965
308 3000 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 7.464
309 4000 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 7.961
310 5000 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 9.204
311 6000 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 10.303
312 7000 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 11.534
13
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
313 8000 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 11.614
314 9000 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 12.589
315 10000 40 3.7 0.35 13 5.531 3.278 12.764
316 1 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 0.031
317 10 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 0.132
318 100 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 0.693
319 500 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 2.269
320 1000 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 3.467
321 2000 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 5.152
322 3000 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 7.691
323 4000 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 8.184
324 5000 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 9.397
325 6000 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 10.592
326 7000 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 11.776
327 8000 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 11.912
328 9000 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 12.971
329 10000 40 4.2 0.35 13 4.717 3.780 13.152
330 1 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 0.034
331 10 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 0.142
332 100 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 0.751
333 500 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 2.437
334 1000 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 3.749
335 2000 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 5.457
336 3000 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 8.241
337 4000 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 8.770
338 5000 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 10.023
339 6000 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 11.271
340 7000 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 12.589
341 8000 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 12.735
342 9000 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 13.740
343 10000 40 5.2 0.35 13 2.679 4.785 13.931
344 1 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 0.015
345 10 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 0.083
346 100 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 0.400
347 500 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 1.150
348 1000 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 1.879
349 2000 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 3.380
350 3000 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 4.720
351 4000 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 4.977
352 5000 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 6.095
353 6000 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 6.194
354 7000 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 7.294
355 8000 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 7.516
356 9000 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 8.689
357 10000 40 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.840 3.278 8.749
358 1 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 0.017
359 10 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 0.094
360 100 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 0.432
361 500 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 1.288
362 1000 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 1.999
363 2000 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 3.723
364 3000 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 5.035
365 4000 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 5.445
366 5000 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 7.498
367 6000 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 6.652
368 7000 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 7.780
369 8000 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 8.053
370 9000 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 9.268
371 10000 40 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.468 3.780 9.311
14
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
372 1 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 0.020
373 10 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 0.107
374 100 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 0.466
375 500 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 1.396
376 1000 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 2.152
377 2000 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 3.999
378 3000 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 5.382
379 4000 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 5.821
380 5000 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 8.072
381 6000 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 7.144
382 7000 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 8.375
383 8000 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 8.609
384 9000 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 9.908
385 10000 40 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.918 4.785 10.046
386 1 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 0.013
387 10 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 0.055
388 100 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 0.210
389 500 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 0.580
390 1000 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 0.810
391 2000 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 1.114
392 3000 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 1.541
393 4000 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 1.729
394 5000 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 1.883
395 6000 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 2.333
396 7000 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 2.477
397 8000 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 2.897
398 9000 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 3.083
399 10000 25 3.7 0.35 13 5.657 3.278 3.243
400 1 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 0.015
401 10 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 0.061
402 100 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 0.231
403 500 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 0.666
404 1000 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 0.891
405 2000 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 1.196
406 3000 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 1.694
407 4000 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 1.853
408 5000 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 2.009
409 6000 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 2.546
410 7000 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 2.642
411 8000 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 3.126
412 9000 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 3.419
413 10000 25 4.2 0.35 13 4.592 3.780 3.491
414 1 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 0.017
415 10 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 0.068
416 100 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 0.261
417 500 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 0.721
418 1000 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 0.972
419 2000 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 1.291
420 3000 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 1.807
421 4000 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 1.976
422 5000 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 2.152
423 6000 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 2.735
424 7000 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 2.811
425 8000 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 3.334
426 9000 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 3.664
427 10000 25 5.2 0.35 13 2.869 4.785 3.723
428 1 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 0.008
429 10 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 0.033
430 100 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 0.138
15
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
431 500 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 0.352
432 1000 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 0.574
433 2000 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 0.809
434 3000 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 1.066
435 4000 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 1.199
436 5000 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 1.361
437 6000 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 1.667
438 7000 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 1.774
439 8000 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 1.857
440 9000 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 1.931
441 10000 25 3.7 0.35 6.5 5.839 3.278 1.976
442 1 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 0.010
443 10 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 0.043
444 100 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 0.161
445 500 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 0.414
446 1000 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 0.671
447 2000 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 0.941
448 3000 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 1.306
449 4000 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 1.475
450 5000 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 1.625
451 6000 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 1.976
452 7000 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 2.060
453 8000 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 2.167
454 9000 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 2.280
455 10000 25 4.2 0.35 6.5 4.567 3.780 2.338
456 1 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 0.013
457 10 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 0.057
458 100 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 0.191
459 500 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 0.489
460 1000 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 0.816
461 2000 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 1.137
462 3000 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 1.510
463 4000 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 1.694
464 5000 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 1.874
465 6000 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 2.259
466 7000 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 2.409
467 8000 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 2.488
468 9000 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 2.636
469 10000 25 5.2 0.35 6.5 2.461 4.785 2.691
Base Mixture Specimens Data

𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
1 1 65 3.4 0.496 13 4.418 2.977 0.012
2 10 65 3.4 0.496 13 4.418 2.977 0.112
3 100 65 3.4 0.496 13 4.418 2.977 1.039
4 500 65 3.4 0.496 13 4.418 2.977 5.035
5 1 65 3.9 0.496 13 2.637 3.479 0.013
6 10 65 3.9 0.496 13 2.637 3.479 0.115
7 100 65 3.9 0.496 13 2.637 3.479 1.049
8 500 65 3.9 0.496 13 2.637 3.479 5.081
9 1 65 4.9 0.496 13 1.875 4.483 0.013
10 10 65 4.9 0.496 13 1.875 4.483 0.118
11 100 65 4.9 0.496 13 1.875 4.483 1.069
12 500 65 4.9 0.496 13 1.875 4.483 5.176
13 1 65 3.4 0.496 6.5 5.457 2.977 0.009
14 10 65 3.4 0.496 6.5 5.457 2.977 0.089
16
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
15 100 65 3.4 0.496 6.5 5.457 2.977 0.933
16 500 65 3.4 0.496 6.5 5.457 2.977 3.706
17 1000 65 3.4 0.496 6.5 5.457 2.977 7.798
18 1 65 3.9 0.496 6.5 2.982 3.479 0.010
19 10 65 3.9 0.496 6.5 2.982 3.479 0.092
20 100 65 3.9 0.496 6.5 2.982 3.479 0.950
21 500 65 3.9 0.496 6.5 2.982 3.479 3.758
22 1000 65 3.9 0.496 6.5 2.982 3.479 7.906
23 1 65 4.9 0.496 6.5 2.340 4.483 0.011
24 10 65 4.9 0.496 6.5 2.340 4.483 0.095
25 100 65 4.9 0.496 6.5 2.340 4.483 0.972
26 500 65 4.9 0.496 6.5 2.340 4.483 3.845
27 1000 65 4.9 0.496 6.5 2.340 4.483 8.072
28 1 55 3.4 0.496 13 5.632 2.977 0.011
29 10 55 3.4 0.496 13 5.632 2.977 0.111
30 100 55 3.4 0.496 13 5.632 2.977 0.901
31 500 55 3.4 0.496 13 5.632 2.977 4.677
32 1 55 3.9 0.496 13 3.486 3.479 0.012
33 10 55 3.9 0.496 13 3.486 3.479 0.115
34 100 55 3.9 0.496 13 3.486 3.479 0.918
35 500 55 3.9 0.496 13 3.486 3.479 4.742
36 1 55 4.9 0.496 13 2.945 4.483 0.013
37 10 55 4.9 0.496 13 2.945 4.483 0.119
38 100 55 4.9 0.496 13 2.945 4.483 0.944
39 500 55 4.9 0.496 13 2.945 4.483 4.830
40 1 55 3.4 0.496 6.5 5.702 2.977 0.010
41 10 55 3.4 0.496 6.5 5.702 2.977 0.090
42 100 55 3.4 0.496 6.5 5.702 2.977 0.628
43 500 55 3.4 0.496 6.5 5.702 2.977 3.033
44 1000 55 3.4 0.496 6.5 5.702 2.977 5.445
45 1 55 3.9 0.496 6.5 3.939 3.479 0.011
46 10 55 3.9 0.496 6.5 3.939 3.479 0.092
47 100 55 3.9 0.496 6.5 3.939 3.479 0.636
48 500 55 3.9 0.496 6.5 3.939 3.479 3.069
49 1000 55 3.9 0.496 6.5 3.939 3.479 5.495
50 1 55 4.9 0.496 6.5 3.086 4.483 0.011
51 10 55 4.9 0.496 6.5 3.086 4.483 0.093
52 100 55 4.9 0.496 6.5 3.086 4.483 0.648
53 500 55 4.9 0.496 6.5 3.086 4.483 3.097
54 1000 55 4.9 0.496 6.5 3.086 4.483 5.546
55 1 40 3.4 0.496 13 5.571 2.977 0.014
56 10 40 3.4 0.496 13 5.571 2.977 0.106
57 100 40 3.4 0.496 13 5.571 2.97 0.826
58 500 40 3.4 0.496 13 5.571 2.977 3.775
59 1000 40 3.4 0.496 13 5.571 2.977 7.261
60 2000 40 3.4 0.496 13 5.571 2.977 15.595
61 3000 40 3.4 0.496 13 5.571 2.977 24.154
62 1 40 3.9 0.496 13 4.236 3.479 0.018
63 10 40 3.9 0.496 13 4.236 3.479 0.122
64 100 40 3.9 0.496 13 4.236 3.479 0.862
65 500 40 3.9 0.496 13 4.236 3.479 3.962
66 1000 40 3.9 0.496 13 4.236 3.479 7.568
67 2000 40 3.9 0.496 13 4.236 3.479 16.943
68 3000 40 3.9 0.496 13 4.236 3.479 25.763
69 1 40 4.9 0.496 13 4.236 4.483 0.025
70 10 40 4.9 0.496 13 3.445 4.483 0.143
71 100 40 4.9 0.496 13 3.445 4.483 0.974
72 500 40 4.9 0.496 13 3.445 4.483 4.477
73 1000 40 4.9 0.496 13 3.445 4.483 8.550
17
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
74 2000 40 4.9 0.496 13 3.445 4.483 19.098
75 3000 40 4.9 0.496 13 3.445 4.483 28.773
76 1 40 3.4 0.496 6.5 3.445 2.977 0.011
77 10 40 3.4 0.496 6.5 3.445 2.977 0.070
78 100 40 3.4 0.496 6.5 3.445 2.977 0.519
79 500 40 3.4 0.496 6.5 6.045 2.977 1.757
80 1000 40 3.4 0.496 6.5 6.045 2.977 2.798
81 2000 40 3.4 0.496 6.5 6.045 2.977 5.727
82 3000 40 3.4 0.496 6.5 6.045 2.977 7.691
83 1 40 3.9 0.496 6.5 6.045 3.479 0.015
84 10 40 3.9 0.496 6.5 6.045 3.479 0.092
85 100 40 3.9 0.496 6.5 6.045 3.479 0.619
86 500 40 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.557 3.479 2.065
87 1000 40 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.557 3.479 3.280
88 2000 40 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.557 3.479 6.902
89 3000 40 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.557 3.479 9.057
90 1 40 4.9 0.496 6.5 4.557 4.483 0.019
91 10 40 4.9 0.496 6.5 4.557 4.483 0.120
92 100 40 4.9 0.496 6.5 4.557 4.483 0.737
93 500 40 4.9 0.496 6.5 4.557 4.483 2.376
94 1000 40 4.9 0.496 6.5 4.544 4.483 3.775
95 2000 40 4.9 0.496 6.5 4.544 4.483 8.147
96 3000 40 4.9 0.496 6.5 4.544 4.483 10.256
97 1 25 3.4 0.496 13 4.544 2.977 0.020
98 10 25 3.4 0.496 13 4.544 2.977 0.092
99 100 25 3.4 0.496 13 4.544 2.977 0.413
100 500 25 3.4 0.496 13 4.544 2.977 1.078
101 1000 25 3.4 0.496 13 10.485 2.977 1.761
102 2000 25 3.4 0.496 13 10.485 2.977 2.786
103 3000 25 3.4 0.496 13 10.485 2.977 3.706
104 4000 25 3.4 0.496 13 10.485 2.977 4.149
105 5000 25 3.4 0.496 13 10.485 2.977 4.5289
106 6000 25 3.4 0.496 13 10.485 2.977 4.602
107 7000 25 3.4 0.496 13 10.485 2.977 5.140
108 8000 25 3.4 0.496 13 10.485 2.977 5.559
109 9000 25 3.4 0.496 13 10.485 2.977 5.970
110 10000 25 3.4 0.496 13 10.485 2.977 5.984
111 1 25 3.9 0.496 13 10.485 3.479 0.035
112 10 25 3.9 0.496 13 10.485 3.479 0.115
113 100 25 3.9 0.496 13 10.485 3.479 0.489
114 500 25 3.9 0.496 13 10.485 3.479 1.279
115 1000 25 3.9 0.496 13 5.050 3.479 2.094
116 2000 25 3.9 0.496 13 5.050 3.479 3.265
117 3000 25 3.9 0.496 13 5.050 3.479 4.335
118 4000 25 3.9 0.496 13 5.050 3.479 4.819
119 5000 25 3.9 0.496 13 5.050 3.479 5.345
120 6000 25 3.9 0.496 13 5.050 3.479 5.370
121 7000 25 3.9 0.496 13 5.050 3.479 5.984
122 8000 25 3.9 0.496 13 5.050 3.479 6.516
123 9000 25 3.9 0.496 13 5.050 3.479 6.934
124 10000 25 3.9 0.496 13 5.050 3.479 6.982
125 1 25 4.9 0.496 13 5.050 4.483 0.042
126 10 25 4.9 0.496 13 5.050 4.483 0.144
127 100 25 4.9 0.496 13 5.050 4.483 0.591
128 500 25 4.9 0.496 13 5.050 4.483 1.415
129 1000 25 4.9 0.496 13 4.083 4.483 2.333
130 2000 25 4.9 0.496 13 4.083 4.483 3.614
131 3000 25 4.9 0.496 13 4.083 4.483 4.731
132 4000 25 4.9 0.496 13 4.083 4.483 5.296
18
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
133 5000 25 4.9 0.496 13 4.083 4.483 5.874
134 6000 25 4.9 0.496 13 4.083 4.483 6.067
135 7000 25 4.9 0.496 13 4.083 4.483 6.546
136 8000 25 4.9 0.496 13 4.083 4.483 7.112
137 9000 25 4.9 0.496 13 4.083 4.483 7.620
138 10000 25 4.9 0.496 13 4.083 4.483 7.691
139 1 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 4.083 2.977 0.015
140 10 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 4.083 2.977 0.065
141 100 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 4.083 2.977 0.266
142 500 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 4.083 2.977 0.602
143 1000 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 7.474 2.977 0.891
144 2000 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 7.474 2.977 1.264
145 3000 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 7.474 2.977 1.552
146 4000 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 7.474 2.977 1.651
147 5000 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 7.474 2.977 1.967
148 6000 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 7.474 2.977 2.041
149 7000 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 7.474 2.977 2.488
150 8000 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 7.474 2.977 2.594
151 9000 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 7.474 2.977 2.877
152 10000 25 3.4 0.496 6.5 7.474 2.977 3.097
153 1 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 7.474 3.479 0.027
154 10 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 7.474 3.479 0.092
155 100 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 7.474 3.479 0.380
156 500 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 7.474 3.479 0.807
157 1000 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 3.479 1.221
158 2000 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 3.479 1.674
159 3000 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 3.479 2.027
160 4000 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 3.479 2.157
161 5000 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 3.479 2.588
162 6000 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 3.479 2.685
163 7000 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 3.479 3.243
164 8000 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 3.479 3.427
165 9000 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 3.479 3.767
166 10000 25 3.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 3.479 4.055
167 1 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 4.483 0.037
168 10 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 4.483 0.130
169 100 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 4.483 0.442
170 500 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 4.784 4.483 0.952
171 1000 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 5.009 4.483 1.482
172 2000 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 5.009 4.483 1.949
173 3000 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 5.009 4.483 2.328
174 4000 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 5.009 4.483 2.409
175 5000 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 5.009 4.483 2.944
176 6000 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 5.009 4.483 3.033
177 7000 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 5.009 4.483 3.647
178 8000 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 5.009 4.483 3.863
179 9000 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 5.009 4.483 4.216
180 10000 25 4.9 0.496 6.5 5.009 4.483 4.602
181 1 65 3.4 0.35 13 5.009 2.977 0.008
182 10 65 3.4 0.35 13 5.009 2.977 0.079
183 100 65 3.4 0.35 13 5.009 2.977 0.601
184 500 65 3.4 0.35 13 5.009 2.977 2.741
185 1 65 3.9 0.35 13 5.437 3.479 0.009
186 10 65 3.9 0.35 13 5.437 3.479 0.079
187 100 65 3.9 0.35 13 5.437 3.479 0.603
188 500 65 3.9 0.35 13 5.437 3.479 2.754
189 1 65 4.9 0.35 13 2.201 4.483 0.009
190 10 65 4.9 0.35 13 2.201 4.483 0.080
191 100 65 4.9 0.35 13 2.201 4.483 0.609
19
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
192 500 65 4.9 0.35 13 2.201 4.483 2.779
193 1 65 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.221 2.977 0.008
194 10 65 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.221 2.977 0.062
195 100 65 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.221 2.977 0.527
196 500 65 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.221 2.977 2.162
197 1000 65 3.4 0.35 6.5 5.017 2.977 4.295
198 1 65 3.9 0.35 6.5 5.017 3.479 0.008
199 10 65 3.9 0.35 6.5 5.017 3.479 0.063
200 100 65 3.9 0.35 6.5 5.017 3.479 0.537
201 500 65 3.9 0.35 6.5 5.017 3.479 2.187
202 1000 65 3.9 0.35 6.5 3.971 3.479 4.385
203 1 65 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.971 4.483 0.008
204 10 65 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.971 4.483 0.065
205 100 65 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.971 4.483 0.542
206 500 65 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.971 4.483 2.202
207 1000 65 4.9 0.35 6.5 2.769 4.483 4.477
208 1 55 3.4 0.35 13 2.769 2.977 0.008
209 10 55 3.4 0.35 13 2.769 2.977 0.079
210 100 55 3.4 0.35 13 2.769 2.977 0.703
211 500 55 3.4 0.35 13 2.769 2.977 3.589
212 1 55 3.9 0.35 13 4.304 3.479 0.008
213 10 55 3.9 0.35 13 4.304 3.479 0.079
214 100 55 3.9 0.35 13 4.304 3.479 0.712
215 500 55 3.9 0.35 13 4.304 3.479 3.622
216 1 55 4.9 0.35 13 4.142 4.483 0.009
217 10 55 4.9 0.35 13 4.142 4.483 0.080
218 100 55 4.9 0.35 13 4.142 4.483 0.717
219 500 55 4.9 0.35 13 4.142 4.483 3.639
220 1 55 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.977 2.977 0.006
221 10 55 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.977 2.977 0.062
222 100 55 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.977 2.977 0.474
223 500 55 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.977 2.977 1.972
224 1000 55 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.381 2.977 3.580
225 1 55 3.9 0.35 6.5 2.381 3.479 0.007
226 10 55 3.9 0.35 6.5 2.381 3.479 0.063
227 100 55 3.9 0.35 6.5 2.381 3.479 0.485
228 500 55 3.9 0.35 6.5 2.381 3.479 2.009
229 1000 55 3.9 0.35 6.5 3.329 3.479 3.622
230 1 55 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.329 4.483 0.007
231 10 55 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.329 4.483 0.065
232 100 55 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.329 4.483 0.498
233 500 55 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.329 4.483 2.037
234 1000 55 4.9 0.35 6.5 2.726 4.483 3.681
235 1 40 3.4 0.35 13 2.726 2.977 0.012
236 10 40 3.4 0.35 13 2.726 2.977 0.097
237 100 40 3.4 0.35 13 2.726 2.977 0.770
238 500 40 3.4 0.35 13 2.726 2.977 4.055
239 1000 40 3.4 0.35 13 6.634 2.977 8.072
240 1 40 3.9 0.35 13 6.634 3.479 0.015
241 10 40 3.9 0.35 13 6.634 3.479 0.102
242 100 40 3.9 0.35 13 6.634 3.479 0.839
243 500 40 3.9 0.35 13 6.634 3.479 4.246
244 1000 40 3.9 0.35 13 6.634 3.479 8.709
245 1 40 4.9 0.35 13 6.634 4.483 0.019
246 10 40 4.9 0.35 13 4.404 4.483 0.107
247 100 40 4.9 0.35 13 4.404 4.483 0.847
248 500 40 4.9 0.35 13 4.404 4.483 4.325
249 1000 40 4.9 0.35 13 4.404 4.483 8.851
250 1 40 3.4 0.35 6.5 4.404 2.977 0.011
20
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
251 10 40 3.4 0.35 6.5 4.543 2.977 0.065
252 100 40 3.4 0.35 6.5 4.543 2.977 0.400
253 500 40 3.4 0.35 6.5 4.543 2.977 1.757
254 1000 40 3.4 0.35 6.5 4.543 2.977 3.334
255 2000 40 3.4 0.35 6.5 4.543 2.977 5.649
256 3000 40 3.4 0.35 6.5 6.669 2.977 7.379
257 4000 40 3.4 0.35 6.5 6.669 2.977 9.375
258 1 40 3.9 0.35 6.5 6.669 3.479 0.014
259 10 40 3.9 0.35 6.5 6.669 3.479 0.072
260 100 40 3.9 0.35 6.5 6.669 3.479 0.467
261 500 40 3.9 0.35 6.5 6.669 3.479 2.055
262 1000 40 3.9 0.35 6.5 6.669 3.479 3.655
263 2000 40 3.9 0.35 6.5 6.669 3.479 6.151
264 3000 40 3.9 0.35 6.5 6.669 3.479 7.998
265 4000 40 3.9 0.35 6.5 6.669 3.479 10.423
266 1 40 4.9 0.35 6.5 6.669 4.483 0.018
267 10 40 4.9 0.35 6.5 6.669 4.483 0.088
268 100 40 4.9 0.35 6.5 4.503 4.483 0.579
269 500 40 4.9 0.35 6.5 4.503 4.483 2.857
270 1000 40 4.9 0.35 6.5 4.503 4.483 4.325
271 2000 40 4.9 0.35 6.5 4.503 4.483 7.362
272 3000 40 4.9 0.35 6.5 4.503 4.483 9.440
273 4000 40 4.9 0.35 6.5 4.503 4.483 12.246
274 1 25 3.4 0.35 13 4.503 2.977 0.019
275 10 25 3.4 0.35 13 4.674 2.977 0.077
276 100 25 3.4 0.35 13 4.674 2.977 0.318
277 500 25 3.4 0.35 13 4.674 2.977 0.864
278 1000 25 3.4 0.35 13 4.674 2.977 1.327
279 2000 25 3.4 0.35 13 4.674 2.977 2.355
280 3000 25 3.4 0.35 13 4.674 2.977 3.228
281 4000 25 3.4 0.35 13 6.059 2.977 3.810
282 5000 25 3.4 0.35 13 6.059 2.977 4.236
283 6000 25 3.4 0.35 13 6.059 2.977 4.623
284 7000 25 3.4 0.35 13 6.059 2.977 5.727
285 8000 25 3.4 0.35 13 6.059 2.977 5.741
286 9000 25 3.4 0.35 13 6.059 2.977 6.338
287 10000 25 3.4 0.35 13 6.059 2.977 7.413
288 1 25 3.9 0.35 13 6.059 3.479 0.027
289 10 25 3.9 0.35 13 6.059 3.479 0.103
290 100 25 3.9 0.35 13 6.059 3.479 0.381
291 500 25 3.9 0.35 13 6.059 3.479 1.081
292 1000 25 3.9 0.35 13 6.059 3.479 1.663
293 2000 25 3.9 0.35 13 6.059 3.479 2.890
294 3000 25 3.9 0.35 13 6.059 3.479 4.064
295 4000 25 3.9 0.35 13 4.293 3.479 4.731
296 5000 25 3.9 0.35 13 4.293 3.479 5.508
297 6000 25 3.9 0.35 13 4.293 3.479 5.794
298 7000 25 3.9 0.35 13 4.293 3.479 7.095
299 8000 25 3.9 0.35 13 4.293 3.479 7.464
300 9000 25 3.9 0.35 13 4.293 3.479 7.870
301 10000 25 3.9 0.35 13 4.293 3.479 9.225
302 1 25 4.9 0.35 13 4.293 4.483 0.037
303 10 25 4.9 0.35 13 4.293 4.483 0.146
304 100 25 4.9 0.35 13 4.293 4.483 0.517
305 500 25 4.9 0.35 13 4.293 4.483 1.415
306 1000 25 4.9 0.35 13 4.293 4.483 2.243
307 2000 25 4.9 0.35 13 4.293 4.483 3.672
308 3000 25 4.9 0.35 13 4.293 4.483 5.321
309 4000 25 4.9 0.35 13 2.823 4.483 6.251
21
𝜺𝜺𝒑𝒑
310 5000 25 4.9 0.35 13 2.823 4.483 6.886
311 6000 25 4.9 0.35 13 2.823 4.483 7.379
312 7000 25 4.9 0.35 13 2.823 4.483 9.036
313 8000 25 4.9 0.35 13 2.823 4.483 9.549
314 9000 25 4.9 0.35 13 2.823 4.483 10.115
315 10000 25 4.9 0.35 13 2.823 4.483 11.803
316 1 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.823 2.977 0.016
317 10 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.823 2.977 0.059
318 100 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.823 2.977 0.259
319 500 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.823 2.977 0.656
320 1000 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.823 2.977 1.006
321 2000 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.823 2.977 1.651
322 3000 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 2.823 2.977 1.967
323 4000 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 5.924 2.977 2.182
324 5000 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 5.924 2.977 2.147
325 6000 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 5.924 2.977 2.594
326 7000 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 5.924 2.977 2.844
327 8000 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 5.924 2.977 2.971
328 9000 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 5.924 2.977 3.326
329 10000 25 3.4 0.35 6.5 5.924 2.977 3.723
330 1 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 5.924 3.479 0.021
331 10 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 5.924 3.479 0.079
332 100 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 5.924 3.479 0.341
333 500 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 5.924 3.479 0.801
334 1000 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 5.924 3.479 1.196
335 2000 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 5.924 3.479 1.958
336 3000 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 5.924 3.479 2.301
337 4000 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 3.479 2.576
338 5000 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 3.479 2.811
339 6000 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 3.479 3.228
340 7000 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 3.479 3.341
341 8000 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 3.479 3.775
342 9000 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 3.479 3.881
343 10000 25 3.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 3.479 4.570
344 1 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 4.483 0.030
345 10 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 4.483 0.106
346 100 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 4.483 0.422
347 500 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 4.483 1.093
348 1000 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 4.483 1.472
349 2000 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 4.483 2.322
350 3000 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.175 4.483 2.831
351 4000 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.663 4.483 3.334
352 5000 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.663 4.483 3.758
353 6000 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.663 4.483 4.017
354 7000 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.663 4.483 4.226
355 8000 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.663 4.483 4.549
356 9000 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.663 4.483 4.613
357 10000 25 4.9 0.35 6.5 3.663 4.483 5.357
22
Determining Rut Depth in Pavements
AASHTO Designation: R 48-10
Rut is longitudinal depression in a wheel path consisting of

consecutive rut depth determination that measure a depression and extend for
more than 50 m (150 ft).
This practice outlines standard procedures for measuring a transverse

profile of the pavement from which a rut depth may be derived and
summarizing the rut depth over a designated interval. Its purpose is to
produce consistent estimations of rut depth for network-level pavement
management. The intention is to measure rut depth in a vehicle traveling in
the designated lane at highway speed.
Each agency designates the lane(s) and direction(s) of travel to be

surveyed based on some engineering principles and management needs
within the agency.
Transverse profiles should be measured at a maximum spacing of 10

m (33 ft) in the longitudinal direction for the purpose of determining rut
depth. Transverse profiles are measured across both wheel paths of the
survey lane. The goal of the practice is to obtain a transverse profile from
which the depth of both ruts in a traffic lane is derived. The reported
summary statistics are the deepest rut found in each wheel path and average
rut depth within the longitudinal summary interval. The transverse locations
for the five measurement procedure are shown in Figure (A-1).
Figure (A-1) Rut Depth Measurements.
23
Spacing between measurement points depend on pavement agency.
For best rut values, the span between D 1 and D 5 measurements should be no
less than 500 mm (20 in) smaller than the lane width. Depending on
equipment, safe operation often dictated a shorter span, which compromises
the rut value.
Each height measurement, D i , shall be made in a manner to minimize

variability of measurement due to the pavement surface not being a true
planar surface. The depth measurements shall be made to resolution of 3 mm
(0.12 in) and an accuracy of ± 3 mm (± 0.12 in) with a 95 percent
confidence. The basic five point rut depth calculations are:
𝐷𝐷1 + 𝑀𝑀
𝑅𝑅0 = 𝐷𝐷2 −
2
𝑀𝑀 + 𝐷𝐷5
𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 = 𝐷𝐷4 −
2
Where:
𝐷𝐷1 + 𝐷𝐷5
𝑀𝑀 = or D 3 , whichever is less.
2
R 0 = rut depth outside wheel path estimate, mm.
R f = rut depth inside wheel path estimate, mm, and
D 1 , D 2 , … D 5 = height measured as shown in Figure (A-1), mm.
Note 1: This calculation allows for a negative rut depth. The negative rut can
come from unusual cross sections, lateral offset of the measurement location,
or a typical rut configurations.
The transverse profile is determined on the bases of the vertical

distance between an imaginary string line run across the traffic lane from the
shoulder to the lane line. The string line may bend at the hump between the
wheel paths where the hump is higher than the outside and inside edges of
the lane. For manual measurements, the use of a string line will require D 1
and D 5 to be zero.
24
Note 2: This procedure is defined with knowledge of FHWA-RD-01-024
characterization of transverse profile, which compared ruts calculated from
three and five point measurements to significantly denser systems.
The five point system has limited accuracy due to variance in rut
configuration and vehicle wander during the collection process. These
limitations are further complicated by keeping the sensor systems within a
safe envelope while traveling the road.
Note 3: The addition of two sensors at each primary measurement location

(D 1 , D 2 , D 3 , D 4 and D 5 ) spaced 150 mm (6 in.) apart and the application of
appropriate algorithms dramatically improve the reliability of derived rut
values. For maximum effectiveness, both of the outside sensors need to
target beyond the 2300 mm (90 in.) dimension at each end to extend the
simulated string to within 250 mm (10 in.) of the lane width.
Technology is available to provide more than 1000 data points across the
entire lane width. With such a transverse profile measurement, algorithms
can be applied that remove texture effects, compensate for vehicle wander,
and resolve a string line rut value for each wheel path. Obtain and store the
maximum and average rut depth determined from each wheel path within the
selected data summary interval.
25
Calibration Process for LVDT (Linear Variable Differential
Transformer Displacement Transducer) Device
Figure (A-2) Calibration Process Figure (A-3) Recording Data

Total Data for Calibration Factor.
Dial Dial Dial Dial Dial
LVDT LVDT LVDT LVDT LVDT LVDT Dial Gauge
Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.172 0.775 0.15 0.72 0.154 0.77 0.149 0.829 0.154 0.74 0.218 1.22
0.295 1.33 0.256 1.19 0.275 1.31 0.274 1.415 0.288 1.355 0.344 1.85
0.46 2.095 0.367 1.73 0.389 1.82 0.438 2.14 0.457 2.12 0.478 2.494
0.678 3.105 0.519 2.41 0.529 2.465 0.584 2.81 0.642 2.94 0.608 3.11
0.81 3.72 0.635 2.97 0.699 3.24 0.727 3.47 0.986 4.51 0.747 3.77
0.948 4.36 0.812 3.85 0.842 3.9 0.852 4.05 1.134 5.22 0.876 4.38
1.065 4.96 0.93 4.4 0.976 4.525 0.998 4.725 1.304 6.01 1.025 5.075
1.185 5.535 1.039 4.95 1.125 5.3 1.132 5.4 1.384 6.385 1.171 5.76
1.315 6.09 1.123 5.47 1.255 5.88 1.272 6.02 1.554 7.115 1.311 6.4
1.445 6.73 1.243 6.04 1.435 6.75 1.452 6.87 1.644 7.62 1.432 6.96
1.565 7.29 1.383 6.72 1.585 7.425 1.622 7.69 1.814 8.42 1.557 7.55
1.715 7.98 1.503 7.29 1.765 8.29 1.782 8.43 1.974 9.19 1.691 8.17
1.855 8.64 1.613 7.83 1.955 9.21 1.942 9.185 2.144 9.99 1.828 8.82
2.005 9.38 1.733 8.39 2.155 10.11 2.082 9.85 2.224 10.365 1.934 9.47
2.135 10.015 1.843 8.98 2.202 10.42 2.074 10.12
2.245 10.53 2.033 9.89
2.153 10.46
T = Room Temp. 35
T = 40 oC T = 45 oC T = 55 oC T = 60 oC T = 65 oC o
C
Y = 4.66372 * X Y = 4.84273 * X Y = 4.69119 * X Y = 4.73962 * X Y = 4.63523 * X
Y = 4.88782 * X
Calibration Factor (Average) Y = 4.743385 * X
26
‫ﻧﻣﺎﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﺑﺅ ﻟﻠﺗﺷﻭﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺋﻣﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺑﻠﻳﻁ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺗﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻸﺟﻭﺍء ﺍﻟﺣﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺗﺧﻠﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺗﺷﻭﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺋﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺭﺻﻑ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺗﻲ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻷﺛﺭ ﺍﻟﺭﺋﻳﺳﻲ ﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﻳﺔ ﺃﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﺗﺑﻠﻳﻁ ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﺧﺩﺩ ﻳﻘﻠﻝ ﻣﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻣﺷﻛﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺭ ﺍﻟﺧﺩﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺗﺑﻠﻳﻁ ﻭﻳﺷﻛﻝ ﺧﻁﺭﺍً ﺟﺩﻳﺎ ً ﻟﻣﺳﺗﺧﺩﻣﻲ ﺍﻟﻁﺭﻕ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻏﻡ‬
‫ﻣﻭﺟﻭﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺟﻭﺍء ﺍﻟﺣﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺑﺎﺭﺩﺓ ﻟﻛﻧﻬﺎ ﺷﺎﺋﻌﺔ ﺃﻛﺛﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺟﻭﺍء ﺍﻟﺣﺎﺭﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺗﺧﺩﺩ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﺷﻝ ﺍﻟﺭﺋﻳﺳﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺑﻠﻳﻁ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺍﻕ ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻧﺗﻳﺟﺔ ﻟﺗﺯﺍﻳﺩ ﺍﻟﺣﻣﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﻭﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺣﺭﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺻﻝ ﺍﻟﺻﻳﻑ ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺗﺭﺍﻛﻡ ﺍﻟﺗﺷﻭﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺋﻣﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻁﺑﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻁﺣﻳﺔ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻣﻛﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺭﺋﻳﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﺗﺧﺩﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺑﻠﻳﻁ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﻫﻧﺎﻙ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﺗﺟﺎﻩ ﺗﻐﻳﺭ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﺍﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺑﻠﻳﻁ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺍﻕ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺗﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺻﻣﻳﻡ ﻭﺍﺧﺗﻳﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺗﺧﺩﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺑﻠﻳﻁ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﻣﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻭﻓﺭﺓ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺣﺻﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﺎﻟﺋﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺍﺩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺎﻫﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺭﺋﻳﺳﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﺷﻭﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺋﻣﻲ ‪ .‬ﺗﻡ ﺍﻟﺣﺻﻭﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﺍﺑﻁ ﻣﻥ ﻣﺻﻔﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺣﺻﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻥ ﻣﻘﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﻧﺑﺎﻋﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪Superpave‬‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﻣﺕ ﻁﺭﻳﻘﺔ ‪ superpave‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺻﻣﻳﻡ ﻭﺣﺳﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺣﺟﻭﻡ ﻟﻠﻣﻭﺍﺩ ﻭ‬

‫‪ Gyratory Compactor‬ﻓﻲ ﺭﺹ ﺍﻟﻌﻳﻧﺎﺕ ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻋﺩﺍﺩ ‪ ۱٤٤‬ﻋﻳﻧﺔ ﺍﺳﻁﻭﺍﻧﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺑﻌﺎﺩ )‪ ۱۰‬ﺳﻡ ﻗﻁﺭ × ‪ ۱۷,۲‬ﺳﻡ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ ( ﻭ ‪ ۱۸‬ﻋﻳﻧﺔ ﺍﺳﻁﻭﺍﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﺈﺑﻌﺎﺩ )‪ ۱٥‬ﺳﻡ ﻗﻁﺭ × ‪۱۱,٥‬‬
‫ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ(‪ .‬ﺍﻟـ ‪ ۱٤٤‬ﻋﻳﻧﺔ ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﻣﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﺑﺅ ﺑﻧﻣﺎﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺗﺷﻭﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺋﻣﻲ ﻟﺛﻼﺙ ﻁﺑﻘﺎﺕ ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺗﻳﺔ )ﺳﻁﺣﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺳﻭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﺳﺎﺱ(‪ ،‬ﺑﻳﻧﻣﺎ ﺍﻟـ ‪ ۱۸‬ﻋﻳﻧﺔ ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﻣﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺻﻣﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﺣﺟﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺧﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﺣﺳﺏ ﻣﺑﺩﺃ ﺍﻟـ‬
‫‪.superpave‬‬
‫)ﺗﺷﻭﻩ – ﺯﻣﻥ( ﻟﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺣﺭﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﺗﻧﻭﻋﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﺣﺹ ﺍﻟﺣﻣﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻛﺭﺭ ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﻡ ﻟﻭﺻﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺗﻣﺎﺩﺍً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺻﺭﻑ ﺍﻟﺧﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺗﻳﺔ )ﻟﺯﺟﺔ – ﻣﺭﻧﺔ – ﻟﺩﻧﺔ(‪ .‬ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ‪Pneumatic Repeated‬‬
‫‪ Load Test Device‬ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﻡ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺣﺹ ﺍﻟﻌﻳﻧﺎﺕ ﺑﻣﻌﺩﻝ ‪ ۰,۱‬ﺛﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺗﺣﻣﻳﻝ ﻭ ‪ ۰,۹‬ﺛﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻓﺗﺭﺓ ﺭﺍﺣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺩ ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﻡ ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ‪ LVDT‬ﻟﻘﻳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺗﻐﻳﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﻭﺩﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻳﻧﺎﺕ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﺣﺹ‪.‬‬
‫ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﺍﺭﺓ ﻣﻥ ‪ ٥٥‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺋﻭﻳﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٦٥‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺋﻭﻳﺔ ﺳﻳﺯﻳﺩ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﺷﻭﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺋﻣﻲ‬
‫ﺑﻣﻘﺩﺍﺭ ‪ % ٥۱,٦‬ﻟﻠﻁﺑﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻁﺣﻳﺔ ﻭ‪ % ٤٦,٤‬ﻟﻁﺑﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﺳﻭﻳﺔ ﻭ ‪ % ٤٤,۸‬ﻟﻁﺑﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﻣﺎﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﻭﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻠﺩﻥ ﻟﻠﻁﺑﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺗﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺛﻼﺙ ﺑﻧﻳﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﺍﺭﺓ‬
‫‪ .‬ﺑﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺧﺗﺑﺭﻱ ﺣﻠﻠﺕ ﺑﺎﺳﺗﺧﺩﺍﻡ‬ ‫ﻭﻋﺩﺩ ﻣﺭﺍﺕ ﺗﻛﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺣﻣﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﻁ ﻭﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﻥ‬
‫)‪ (SPSS‬ﺍﻹﺻﺩﺍﺭ ‪ ۱۹‬ﻭﻁﺭﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺷﺑﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺻﺑﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻁﺭﻳﻘﺗﻳﻥ‪ :‬ﻁﺭﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﻛﻭﺹ ﺑﺎﺳﺗﺧﺩﺍﻡ ﺑﺭﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺻﻁﻧﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺗﺧﺩﺍﻡ ﺑﺭﻧﺎﻣﺞ )‪ (NEUFRAME‬ﺍﻹﺻﺩﺍﺭ ‪ .٤‬ﻧﻣﺎﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﻥ ﻟﻠﻁﺑﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺛﻼﺙ‬
‫ﻁﻭﺭﺕ ﺑﺎﺳﺗﺧﺩﺍﻡ ﻁﺭﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﻛﻭﺹ ﺃﻳﺿﺎ ﺑﺎﻻﻋﺗﻣﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺣﺗﻭﻯ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺗﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﺯﻭﺟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺟﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﻁ ‪ .‬ﻭﻻﺧﺗﺑﺎﺭ ﻣﺩﻯ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﻣﺎﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻣﻁﻭﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﺗﻁﺑﻳﻕ ‪ ،‬ﺑﺭﻧﺎﻣﺞ )‪۲۰۰٤ (KENPAVE‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﻡ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﺭﺽ ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻧﻣﺎﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻣﻁﻭﺭﺓ ﻣﻣﻛﻥ ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﺍﻣﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺧﺗﻳﺎﺭ ﻣﻛﻭﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺧﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺗﻳﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻙ‬
‫ﻟﻐﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﺑﺅ ﺑﻘﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﺗﺧﺩﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺑﻠﻳﻁ ﺗﺣﺕ ﺗﺄﺛﻳﺭ ﺍﻷﺣﻣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻭﻗﻌﺔ ﻭﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﺍﺭﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﻣﻬﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺍﻕ‬
‫ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺗﻌﻠﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺑﺣﺙ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻣﻲ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﻐﺩﺍﺩ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻧﺩﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺳﻡ ﺍﻟﻬﻧﺩﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺩﻧﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻣﺎﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﺑﺅ ﻟﻠﺗﺷﻭﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺋﻣﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺑﻠﻳﻁ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺗﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻸﺟﻭﺍء ﺍﻟﺣﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻃﺮﻭﺣﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ ﻛﺠﺰء ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﻧﻴﻞﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭﺍﻩ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻳﺎﻣﻲ ﻣﺣﻣﺩ ﻫﻼﻝ‬
‫)ﺑﻛﻠﻭﺭﻳﻭﺱ ﻫﻧﺩﺳﺔ ﻣﺩﻧﻳﺔ ‪(۲۰۰۰‬‬
‫)ﻣﺎﺟﺳﺗﻳﺭ ﻫﻧﺩﺳﺔ ﻣﺩﻧﻳﺔ ‪(۲۰۰٥‬‬
‫ﻣﺣﺭﻡ ‪۱٤۳۳‬‬ ‫ﺗﺷﺭﻳﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ‪۲۰۱۱‬‬
‫‪View publication stats‬‬

Miami M.hilal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miami M.hilal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

PREDICTION OF PERMANENT DEFORMATION MODELS FOR ASPHALT

Thesis · December 2011

Asphalt mixtures View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PREDICTION OF PERMANENT DEFORMATION

PROF. HAMED M. H. PROF. DR. RAFA H.

The researcher wishes to express her deep gratitude to the supervisors

The researcher also wishes to present her appreciation and gratefulness to

Thanks are presented to my colleagues Eng. Hayder H. and Eng. Mariam S.

Finally, I am so grateful for my parents, brothers and sisters for their

Permanent deformation of asphalt pavements has a major impact on

Rutting is the major distress in flexible pavements in Iraq as a result of

A study is needed to explore the trends of temperature variation in flexible

The Superpave mix design system was adopted in volumetric proportioning

Depending on the visco-elasto-plastic behavior of asphalt concrete mixtures,

Increasing the temperature from 55 0C to 65 0C has increased the permanent

TITLE Page No.

Table No. Table Title Page No.

Figure No. Figure Title Page No.

N max. Maximum Number of Gyrations

𝑝𝑝𝑑𝑑 Axial Permanent Deformation

The ability to predict the amount and growth of permanent deformation or

Permanent deformation is one of the most important types of load-associated

Figure (1-1) Types of Rutting in Flexible Pavements

1.1 The Objective

The main objective of this research is to develop permanent deformation

1.2 Dissertation Structure

2.2 Rutting in Flexible Pavements

2.3 Rutting Mechanism

Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) has defined three

2.4 Causes of Rutting in Flexible Pavements

2.4.1 Rutting Caused by Weak Asphalt Mixture

Figure (2-3) Rutting from Weak Mixture (Asphalt Institute, 1994)

2.4.2 Rutting Caused by Weak Subgrade

Figure (2-5) Rutting from Weak Subgrade (Asphalt Institute, 1994)

The structure is especially susceptible to this type of distress when there is

2.4.3 Rutting Caused by Pavement Wear

Figure (2-8): Temperature Shift Behavior of Asphalt Binder

Figure (2-9): Microscopic View of Liquid Flow Properties

2.5.2.3 Asphalt Mix Design

a. Effect of Mix Properties

2.5.3 Thickness of Asphalt Layer

2.6 Material Testing

2.7 Analytical Models

2.7.1 Mechanistic Empirical Approach:

The basic advantages of a mechanistic-empirical pavement design method

The benefit of a mechanistic-empirical approach is its ability to accurately

2.7.2 Regression Model Approach:

Regression analysis is a statistical technique that attempts to explore and

where Y is the dependent variable, X is the independent variable, the subscript i

The regression model is based on the following assumptions:

• The relationship between X and Y is linear.

Multiple regression is a flexible method of data analysis that may be appropriate

𝑌𝑌 = 𝐴𝐴 + 𝐵𝐵1 𝑋𝑋1 + 𝐵𝐵2 𝑋𝑋2 + 𝐵𝐵3 𝑋𝑋3 + … + 𝐵𝐵𝑛𝑛 𝑋𝑋𝑛𝑛 (2.3)

2.7.3 Artificial Neural Network Approach:

An artificial neural network is a parallel information-processing system that

Figure (2-10) A Single-Layer Neural Net.

Literature review shows increasing popularity of this approach in pavement

2.8 Types of Rutting Prediction Models

2.8.2. Plastic-Elastic Vertical Strain Ratio Approach

2.8.3. Permanent Strain Rate Approach

And when letting: