TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1539
Mechanistic-Empirical Flexible Pavement
Design: An Overview
MARSHALL R. THOMPSON
Activities associated with the development of the revised AASHTO
Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures (1986 edition) prompted
the AASHTO Joint Task Force on Pavements (JTFOP) recommenda-
tion to immediately initiate research with the objective of developing
mechanistic pavement analysis and design procedures suitable for use
in future versions of the AASHTO guide. The mechanistic-empirical
(M-E) principles and concepts stated in the AASHTO guide were
included in the NCHRP 1-26 (Calibrated Mechanistic Structural Analy-
sis Procedures for Pavements) project statement. It was not the purpose
of NCHRP Project 1-26 to devote significant effort to develop new tech-
nology but to assess, evaluate, and apply available M-E technology.
Thus, the proposed processes and procedures were based on the best
demonstrated available technology. NCHRP Project 1-26 has been com-
pleted and the comprehensive reports are available. M-E flexible pave-
ment design is a reality. Some state highway agencies (Kentucky and
Illinois) have already established M-E design procedures for new pave-
ments. M-E flexible pavement design procedures have also been devel-
oped by industry groups (Shell, Asphalt Institute, and Mobil). The
AASHTO JTFOP continues to support and promote the development of
M-E procedures for pavement thickness design and is facilitating move-
ment toward an M-E procedure. The successful and wide-scale imple-
mentation of M-E pavement design procedures will require cooperating
and interacting with various agencies and groups (state highway agen-
cies, AASHTO—particularly the AASHTO JTFOP, FHWA—particu-
larly the Pavement Division and Office of Engineering, and many mate-
rial and paving association industry groups). It is not an easy process,
but it is an achievable goal.
Mechanistic-Empirical Design Procedures is the title of Part IV of
the 1986 AASHTO Guide (1). The Introduction (Section 1.1) of Part
IV states
For purposes of this Guide, the use of analytical methods refers to the
numerical capability to calculate the stress, strain, or deflection in a
multi-layered system, such as a pavement, when subjected to external
loads, or the effects of temperature or moisture. Mechanistic methods
or procedures will refer to the ability to translate the analytical calcu-
lations of pavement response to performance. Performance, for the
majority of procedures used, refers to physical distress such as crack-
ing or rutting.
However, researchers recognize that pavement performance will
likely be influenced by a number of factors which will not be precisely
modeled by mechanistic methods. It is, therefore, necessary to cali-
brate the models with the observations of performance, i.e. empirical
correlations. Thus, the procedure is referred to in the Guide as a
mechanistic-empirical design procedure.
The AASHTO Joint Task Force on Pavements (JTFOP) continues
to support and promote the development of mechanistic-empirical
(M-E) procedures for pavement thickness design and the JTFOP is
sponsoring a workshop in 1996 on Improved Pavement Design. The
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, 205 North Mathews,
Urbana, Ill. 61801.
1
workshop will focus on facilitating movement toward an M-E pro-
cedure. It is important to acknowledge that M-E flexible pavement
design is a reality. Some state highway agencies (SHA) such as
Kentucky (2) and Illinois (3–5) have already established M-E design
procedures for new pavements. M-E flexible pavement design
procedures have also been developed by industry groups (6–10).
Activities associated with the development of the revised
AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures (1) prompted
the AASHTO JTFOP to recommend that research should be initi-
ated immediately with the objective of developing mechanistic
pavement analysis and design procedures suitable for use in future
versions of the AASHTO guide. NCHRP Project 1-26 (Calibrated
Mechanistic Structural Analysis Procedures for Pavements) was the
first NCHRP project to be sponsored. The M-E principles and con-
cepts in the 1986 AASHTO guide were included in the NCHRP
Project 1-26 project statement.
It was not the purpose of NCHRP Project 1-26 to devote signifi-
cant effort to developing new technology but rather to assessing,
evaluating, and applying available M-E technology. Thus, the pro-
posed processes and procedures were based on the best demon-
strated available technology. NCHRP Project 1-26 has been com-
pleted and the comprehensive reports (11–14) are available from
NCHRP/TRB. Working versions of M-E design processes and
procedures were proposed for flexible pavements (conventional
flexible pavements, Full-depth AC pavements, high strength—
stabilized-base pavements). The proposed procedures relate pave-
ment responses (stresses, strains, and deflections) to the develop-
ment of specific pavement distresses.
NCHRP 1-26 emphasized that M-E pavement design is impor-
tant, but it is only a segment of a larger scenario. An M-E design
process cannot adequately address all pertinent factors and issues
related to load responses, distresses development, and ultimate
pavement system performance. Thickness-related factors are most
readily addressed by M-E pavement design. Some other important
factors are material selection practices and material specifications,
construction policies and specifications, quality control and quality
assurance procedures, and maintenance and rehabilitation practices.
M-E DESIGN CONCEPTS
Figure 1 illustrates the general concepts of an M-E model (13). The
pavement design process is complex. The major components of the
M-E procedure are inputs, structural models, transfer functions, and
reliability. These components are comprehensively discussed in the
NCHRP 1-26 reports (11–14). Two of the most important compo-
nents, structural models and transfer functions, are briefly consid-
ered in this paper.
2 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1539
FIGURE 1 Components of mechanistic design procedure.
Calculated pavement structural responses are for given time,
given climate, given pavement structure, given material properties,
and given loading inputs. Pavement responses change as these
inputs vary throughout the pavement service life. Pavement per-
formance is a long-term consideration and mechanistic analysis
and design procedures must account for the effect of the varying
time-related inputs to the structural model.
STRUCTURAL MODELS
A major task in Phase 1 of NCHRP 1-26 (11,12) was the review and
evaluation of available mechanistic analysis procedures. It was
concluded that the available flexible pavement structural models
and computer codes for mechanistic analysis are adequate for sup-
porting the development and initiating implementation of M-E
thickness design procedures. Stress-dependent finite element pro-
grams (such as ILLI-PAVE, MICH-PAVE, and Texas ILLI-
PAVE) and elastic layer computer programs (such as BISAR,
WESLEA, JULEA, CHEVRON, ELSYM 5, CIRCLY) are recom-
mended for flexible pavements. The finite element programs are
more versatile and can accommodate stress-dependent properties
(stress hardening for granular materials and stress softening for
fine-grained soils) and also can incorporate failure criteria (such as
the Mohr-Coulomb model in ILLI-PAVE).
PC versions of these programs are available. They execute very
quickly on a moderately priced PC. In some instances (3–5), pave-
ment response prediction algorithms are used to accomplish routine
pavement designs.
TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
Transfer functions (distress models) relate the pavement responses
determined from mechanistic models to pavement performance as
measured by the type and severity of distress (rutting, cracking,
roughness, and so forth). Modes of distress such as the fatigue and
permanent deformation of paving materials and subgrade soils can
be characterized from extensive testing of specimens under con-
trolled laboratory conditions. The effects of such factors as stress
level, frequency of load repetitions, rest periods, mixture variables,
and moisture content/density factors, can be readily considered in
laboratory-based studies.
The most common flexible pavement transfer functions are
(a) asphalt concrete (AC) flexural strain: fatigue life algorithms,
(b) subgrade vertical strain: pavement life relations (for a given level
of pavement rutting), (c) permissible subgrade stress ratios (sub-
grade stress/subgrade strength) for various equivalent single axle
load (ESAL) levels, and (d ) surface deflection: pavement life rela-
tions (surface deflection is a reliable indicator of AC flexural strain,
subgrade vertical strain, and subgrade stress ratio).
Other flexible pavement distress phenomenon like AC block
cracking and AC thermal cracking are more complex and generally
evaluated from actual field performance data. In the field, the sig-
nificant influencing factors cannot be readily controlled or measured
as in laboratory-based conditions. Thus, it is more difficult to
develop accurate and refined transfer functions for these distress
modes.
Available transfer functions were reviewed and evaluated in
NCHRP 1-26. It was concluded that
• Transfer functions are the weak link in the M-E design
approach. Extensive field calibration and verification are required to
establish reliable distress prediction models.
• Usable flexible pavement transfer functions (distress models)
are available for AC fatigue and subgrade rutting.
• Transfer functions for AC and granular material rutting are
marginal.
— AC rutting is best considered by material selection and mix-
ture design procedures and practices. (Note: The Superpave Level
I Mixture Design procedure is a good example of this approach).
— Granular material rutting considerations can be accommo-
dated by establishing minimum AC thickness requirements for
given classes (based on shear strength and moisture sensitivity)
of granular base/subbase materials.
— The Ohio State rutting rate model approach (15) appears to
be a good approach for considering laboratory and field perma-
nent deformation data. The rutting rate model (based on a Log
permanent strain–Log load repetitions relation) is applicable to
AC, granular materials, and fine-grained soils. AASHO Road
Test rut depth data were used (12,16) to demonstrate the veracity
of the model.
SHIFT FACTORS
Predicted and observed flexible pavement distress and performance
frequently do not compare favorably. The 1986 AASHTO guide (1)
emphasized the importance of calibration activities. Shift factors are
used with various transfer functions to adjust predicted distress
development to more realistically reflect field-observed pavement
distress and performance. A major credibility gap in current M-E
design procedures is the large magnitude of the shift factors.
Several elements contribute to the magnitude of the Shift-Factor.
NCHRP 1-26 investigators concluded that there are inadequacies/
limitations in the inputs, structural models, and transfer functions.
Thus, field calibration activities are essential to establishing the shift
factors.
Some current activities and data bases that should significantly
contribute to the development of improved flexible pavement
transfer functions are
• The FHWA Long Term Pavement Performance program
(LTPP): The GPS section data have some limitations. The GPS
Thompson
sections do not have “original/as-constructed” paving material and
subgrade soil properties and other relevant data are generally not
available. More significantly, there is not a continuous record of
pavement distress development versus traffic. Thus, only a snapshot
of the section’s performance is provided with the initial data collec-
tion. As additional LTPP data are collected under the auspices of the
FHWA, this limitation will be alleviated and the LTPP GPS data
should become more useful. A complicating factor related to the
LTPP data is the adequacy and accuracy of the traffic data. The
SHAs are responsible for providing traffic data. The traffic back-
casting procedures used to estimate historic traffic data (in terms of
ESALs) included in the GPS section inventory information do not
reflect a consistent methodology or procedure. The historic data fre-
quently are not consistent with data collected since the pavement
section was included in the GPS program. The quality of the GPS
traffic data continues to be an issue of major concern and study. The
more comprehensive and complete SPS data are much more suitable
for M-E calibration activities. It is hoped that the LTPP SPS traffic
data collection and analysis procedures will provide accurate and
reliable traffic data.
• Accelerated Pavement Testing activities: Several agencies are
conducting full-scale pavement section studies using accelerated
loading facility, heavy vehicle simulator, and Texas mobile load
simulator equipment.
• Test Roads: The Illinois Department of Transportation (DOT)
is currently monitoring full-depth AC experimental sections con-
structed in 1986 on US 50 in south central Illinois and US-20 in
northern Illinois. The North Carolina DOT US-421 flexible pave-
ment project near Siler City has been completed. The comprehen-
sive Minnesota DOT MnROAD project is in operation. The Ohio
DOT experimental road research project has been constructed
recently on US-23 north of Delaware. The Nevada WESTRACK
project sponsored by FHWA has been constructed and trafficking
initiated.
Calibration and verification study results and findings should
be continually reviewed and evaluated and, when justified and
appropriate, used to improve flexible pavement transfer functions.
CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATION
It is absolutely essential to use a closed-loop approach in the
development of M-E–based analysis and design procedures. The
materials testing and evaluation concepts, structural models,
climatic models, and so forth, used in calibrating transfer functions
must also be used in subsequent pavement design activities. NCHRP
develops validates, and verifies its own calibrated mechanistic-
based structural analysis and design procedures (relevant to its soils,
materials, climate, specifications, cross sections, etc.). It is not
possible to establish one set of guidelines for the entire country.
In field verification and calibration activities, it is essential to have
adequate data for the pavement sections under consideration. As a
minimum, the data must include a range of values for the various
M-E inputs, actual traffic data for the vehicles that use the pavement,
and distress measurements as a function of traffic. Most SHAs do
not have adequate and available historical pavement performance
data and M-E inputs for supporting field calibration activities.
An overview of pavement design reliability (17) was presented at
the sixth Ann Arbor Conference. The overview was based on efforts
in developing the reliability procedures included in the 1986
3
AASHTO guide (1). In the overview, the term Pavement Design-
Performance Process (PDPP) is used. An M-E pavement design
procedure is a PDPP. In the repeated application of a PDPP, the a
priori design predictions of traffic and performance (pavement life)
can be compared to the actual traffic applied to the pavement and
the actual performance displayed by the pavement. Thus, the over-
all PDPP variance (S 2o for pavement life) can be established. The S 2o
term is indicative of PDPP adequacy and reliability.
In a work by Irick et al. (17) it is indicated that such data are not
readily available. They state, “. . . the AASHO Road Test is virtu-
ally the only performance study that has produced comprehensive
field data on performance prediction variance.”
To develop appropriate data, it is suggested (17) that the observed
projects should represent at least 30 independent iterations of
the same design equation and should cover a wide range of design
applications.
In Part IV of Section 1.4.6 (Field Testing and Calibration) of the
1986 AASHTO guide (1), an example calibration process is
summarized as follows:
1. Obtain data from at least twenty actual field test pavements
that have been selected with known design, materials, traffic, and
climate data. The sections should range from extensive distress to
very little distress or overall deterioration.
2. The inputs to the structural analysis model should be obtained
as specified in the design procedure (e.g., strain, stress, strength,
resilient modulus, number of applied traffic loads, climate, etc.) for
each of the field pavements sections.
3. Distress estimates should be computed for each section using
the appropriate output from the structural analysis combined with
damage criteria.
4. The estimates are compared with actual field observations of
distress to determine calibration factors. A calibration procedure
such as this will result in realistic pavement designs and will pro-
vide the needed confidence and credibility for the mechanistic
approach.
The 1986 AASHTO guide (1) further states (Part IV of Section
1.4.7)
After the calibration process has been completed, the prediction mod-
els developed for each distress type should be tested on a wide range
of projects for which performance information is available. Some final
adjustments in the distress models may be necessary as part of this final
step. The agency should maintain an on-going program of data acqui-
sition to continually improve the system.
If different specification materials (e.g., different asphalt concrete
mixtures and aggregate bases and subbases) are routinely used by
an SHA, the number of field verification and calibration sections
will increase considerably.
In selecting pavement sections for inclusion in the calibration
operation, it is essential to discern whether the traffic that has pro-
duced the observed pavement distresses and performance includes
72 kip (320 kN) maximum truck loadings, 72 kip (320 kN) and 80
kip (354 kN) maximum truck loadings, or only 80 kip (354 kN) max-
imum truck loadings. The difficulty in analyzing the effects of mixed
traffic on flexible pavement rutting is discussed elsewhere (13).
If adequate information and data are not available for calibration
and establishing the S 2o term per the previously described ap-
proaches, then alternative approaches must be used to facilitate
implementation of an M-E procedure.
4 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1539
A design confirmation approach is a reasonable option. In this
approach, the M-E procedure is used to explain pavement perfor-
mance successes and failures. (Care should be taken to ensure that
undue weighting is not given to long-term survivor sections and
inadequate attention provided to early life failures.) Modifications
and adjustments are made in the M-E procedure to reconcile identi-
fied discrepancies. Confidence and improved reliability are thus
developed in the M-E procedure. The design confirmation approach
can be used as a check procedure for SHA current pavement design
procedure. In most cases, additional information and data (beyond
that required for the current SHA procedure) will be required. Fre-
quently, the pavement failures associated with a section designed by
the routine SHA procedure can be explained by M-E analysis and
design concepts and procedures.
A feasible option is an iterative approach. If M-E inputs can be
developed or reasonable estimates made and if conservative and
realistic transfer functions are established after careful study and
consideration, initial M-E implementation activities can be started.
Adequate data and information for the paving materials, subgrade
soils, and as-constructed conditions should be established and col-
lected for the implementation projects. As traffic, pavement distress
and performance, and climatic data are collected and accumulated,
the more traditional verification and calibration process can be used
and appropriate M-E design procedure modifications made. The
time factor is a major limitation to this approach. Although flexible
pavement rutting trends develop quickly, AC fatigue cracking pave-
ment distress for a typical 15 to 20 year design life is not apparent
for many years.
Paving materials, mixture design procedures, soils and materials
testing procedures, traffic loadings, construction and maintenance
practices, and so forth, are constantly changing. Thus ongoing cali-
bration and verification activities should be considered essential by
any agency using M-E pavement thickness design procedures.
M-E IMPLEMENTATION PERSPECTIVES
The SHAs in AASHTO are the primary potential users of any
AASHTO M-E pavement design procedure. An AASHTO working
group (AWG) was formed to support the conduct of NCHRP
1-26/Phase 2. The AWG included Arkansas, New York, Oregon,
South Dakota, North Carolina, and an FHWA representative. An
NCHRP 1-26 M-E pavement design presentation was delivered at
each SHA headquarters. During and following the presentations, the
SHAs interacted with the project staff and provided meaningful
guidance and counsel concerning M-E inputs, structural modeling
and transfer functions, and procedure packaging and presentation.
It was apparent that if M-E procedures are to be widely used by
SHA personnel, they should be technologically sound, be under-
standable, require a minimum (but adequate) number of inputs, and
be presented in user-friendly formats (charts, graphs, PC programs).
There is little to be gained by increasing the sophistication in an
M-E pavement design procedure if that sophistication increases the
complexity of the design process without significantly improving
the precision of the pavement distress predictions. However, the
best demonstrated, available technology should be evaluated and,
if appropriate and practical, incorporated into the M-E design
procedure.
Several factors relevant to potential M-E implementation activ-
ities were identified in cooperating with the AWG. Some key
observations are the following:
• Most SHAs do not at this time have the necessary personnel,
time, and financial resources to support a significant large-scale
M-E implementation program.
• There is frequently a lack of M-E input data. Sufficient re-
peated loading equipment (required for resilient modulus and per-
manent deformation testing) equipment is generally not available on
a wide-scale basis in the state.
• None of the SHAs in the AWG had (in 1991 and 1992) exist-
ing or tentative transfer functions for supporting an M-E flexible
pavement design procedure.
• SHAs do not have adequate available flexible pavement
data and information to support M-E verification and calibration
activities.
• SHAs are receptive to and appreciate the technological rigor
and potential usefulness of M-E design concepts for use in design
check applications or in the development of M-E design procedures.
• SHAs prefer to have the M-E procedures presented in a con-
ventional format (charts, tables, figures, nomographs, etc.) and also
in the form of user-friendly, PC-based programs. It was indicated
that help screens would be particularly useful.
• Some of the SHAs suggested that the M-E procedures require
a considerable amount of information and indicated the desirability
of providing a simplified procedure for the more common design
conditions.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The information, procedures, and technology presented in the
NCHRP 1-26 reports (11–14) provide an excellent source of back-
ground information to an SHA interested in evaluating, developing,
and perhaps ultimately implementing M-E design procedures. Some
SHAs are already routinely using M-E flexible pavement design
procedures. However, the procedures developed by an SHA must
reflect its specifications, practices, policies, and procedures and
must be calibrated using its in-service pavement performance data.
The following activities are recommended to faciliate more rapid
and effective SHA development and implementation of M-E
flexible pavement design concepts and procedures.
• Foster and support activities that contribute to the development
of improved and more reliable transfer functions. Transfer functions
are the weak link in M-E pavement design procedures.
• Establish an effective mechanism to identify and monitor
pavements suitable for use in M-E calibration and verification activ-
ities. Provide a cost-effective process to make this calibration and
verification information and data readily available.
• Expand efforts to refine traffic inputs. Improved traffic data
contribute to better M-E a priori pavement design and also enhance
pavement management system activities. Consider, perhaps as an
interim approach, the option of developing structural design traffic
classes for potential use in M-E design procedures.
• Encourage AASHTO to continue vigorously supporting the
preparation of interim versions of M-E pavement design procedures.
• Encourage AASHTO and other pavement research sponsors to
continue to program research and development activities that will
contribute to the further development and refinement of a priori
M-E pavement design procedures. Some important topic areas (in
addition to those indicated above) identified in NCHRP 1-26 are (a)
pavement design reliability methodology; (b) ESAL or load spectra
considerations, or both, including equivalence factors (structural
Thompson
response versus performance based); and (c) permanent deforma-
tion and AC fatigue considerations in flexible pavement analysis
and design.
Successful and wide-scale implementation of M-E pavement
design procedures will require cooperation and interaction with
various agencies and grounds (SHAs, AASHTO—particularly
the AASHTO JTFOP, FHWA—particularly the Pavement Division/
Office of Engineering, and many material and paving association
industry groups).
REFERENCES
1. Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1986 and 1993.
2. Southgate, H. F., and R. C. Deen. Pavement Design Based on Work.
Report UKTRP-87-29. Kentucky Transportation Research Program,
College of Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, 1987.
3. Mechanistic Pavement Design. Supplement to Section 7 of the Illinois
Department of Transportation Design Manual, Springfield, Aug. 1989.
4. Conventional Flexible Pavement Design for Local Agencies. Bureau of
Local Roads and Streets, Illinois Department of Transportation, Spring-
field, Aug. 1995.
5. Full-Depth Bituminous Concrete Pavement Design for Local Agencies.
Bureau of Local Roads and Streets, Illinois Department of Transporta-
tion, Springfield, Aug. 1995.
6. Shell Pavement Design Manual—Asphalt Pavements and Overlays for
Road Traffic. Shell International Petroleum Company, Ltd., London,
England, 1978.
7. Addendum to the Shell Pavement Design Manual—Asphalt Pavements
and Overlays for Road Traffic. Shell International Petroleum Company,
Ltd., London, England, 1985.
5
8. Thickness Design—Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets. Man-
ual Series MS-1. Asphalt Institute, Lexington, Ky., 1991.
9. Computer Program DAMA (CP-1)—Pavement Structural Analysis
Using Multi-Layered Elastic Theory. Asphalt Institute, Lexington, Ky.
10. Asphalt Pavement Design Manual for the U.K. Mobil Oil Co., Ltd.,
London, England, June 1985.
11. Calibrated Mechanistic Structural Analysis Procedure for Pavements,
Volume 1. NCHRP Project 1-26, Final Report, Phase 1. TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990.
12. Calibrated Mechanistic Structural Analysis Procedure for Pavements,
Volume 2. NCHRP Project 1-26, Appendix, Phase 1. TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990.
13. Calibrated Mechanistic Structural Analysis Procedure for Pavements,
Volume 1. NCHRP Project 1-26, Final Report, Phase 2. TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1992.
14. Calibrated Mechanistic Structural Analysis Procedure for Pavements,
Volume 2. NCHRP Project 1-26, Appendix, Phase 2. TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1992.
15. Majidzadeh, K. et al. Implementation of a Pavement Design System,
Volumes 1 and 2, Final Report EES 579. Ohio State University, Colum-
bus, 1981.
16. Thompson, M. R., and D. Nauman. Rutting Rate Analyses of the
AASHO Road Test Flexible Pavements. In Transportation Research
Record 1384, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1993, pp. 36–48.
17. Irick, P., W. R. Hudson, and B. F. McCullough. Application of Relia-
bility Concepts to Pavement Design. Proc., 6th International Confer-
ence on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1987.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Flexible Pavement
Design.