NUMERICAL SIMULATION APPROACH TO FLEXIBLE

PAVEMENT RELIABILITY CONSIDERATION OF

AASHTO 1986/1993 PAVEMENT DESIGN GUIDE

BY

ISAAC OTI
 CONTENTS
 AASHTO Flexible Pavement Empirical Design Equations
 Reliability Concept in AASHTO 1986/1993 Pavement
Design Guide
 Problem Statement

 Numerical Simulation Technique

 Simulation of 1993 Design Variables And Reliability

 Improvements of Reliability Method from AASHTO

1986/1993 in MEPDG method
 MEPDG Distress Simulations with Factor of Safety

 Evaluating Efficacy of Simulations

 Results

 Discussions

 Conclusions
AASHTO FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT EMPIRICAL
DESIGN EQUATIONS

 Based on AASHO road test of 1950s but has

been modified by theory and experience.

 A regression relationship between the

number of load cycles, pavement structural
capacity, and performance, measured in
terms of serviceability.

 Most widely used method today.

 AASHTO FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT EMPIRICAL DESIGN EQUATIONS (CONT.)
First interim guide (October 1961)

1972 edition (Revised and first published)

1986/1993 edition (Reliability concept introduced)

W18 = Predicted 18 kips ESALs Pt = Design life terminal serviceability

SN = Structural number of pavement R = Regional factor
Si = Soil support value ZR= Reliability factor
So = standard deviation MR = Subgrade resilient
modulus
= Difference between the initial design serviceability indexes
SN = structural number defined as: SN =a1D1 + a2D2m3 + a3D3m3.
RELIABILITY CONCEPT IN AASHTO
1986/1993 PAVEMENT DESIGN GUIDE
Normal distribution was used.

Withrespect to reliability, the pavement design performance process

involves:

(i) Prediction of demand, WT of actual design period ESAL, NT;

(ii) Multiplication of WT by a selected reliability factor FR ≥1;

(iii) Prediction of actual pavement performance N t by predicted

capacity, Wt

Reliability Factor FR =

log(WT) = -log(FR) + log(Wt)

 RELIABILITY CONCEPT IN AASHTO 1986/1993
PAVEMENT DESIGN GUIDE (CONT.)

Log ESALs Log Margin of Log ESALs Capacity

Demand Safety

 Prediction error in design period traffic = (logWT - logNT)

 Prediction error in pavement performance = (logWt – logNt)

 Reliability = Prob ( ) * 100

So is the standard deviation.

PROBLEM STATEMENT
Standard error of traffic prediction and the variance
of all the distribution of all possible deviations of
design traffic prediction from actual traffic.

Standard error of performance prediction and the

variance of all the distribution of all possible
deviations of performance prediction from actual
traffic.
NUMERICAL SIMULATION TECHNIQUE
 Monte Carlos Simulation Technique is
adopted.

 It is a computerized simulation procedure

that takes each input variable, assigns a
range of values (using the mean and
standard deviation of the input variable) to
generate possible outcomes of a probability
distribution.
SIMULATION OF 1993 DESIGN VARIABLES
AND RELIABILITY
 EXCEL spreadsheet is used to perform simulations.

 1986/1993 flexible pavement design equation is

applied to generate 1000 pavement sections for
factors of safety 1 to 25.
 Characteristics of the variables used in simulation
are obtained from from Huang (1993) and Darter
(1973).

 Variables are assumed normally distributed.

 Reliability = Number of successful pavements/

Total number of pavements.
SIMULATION OF 1993 DESIGN VARIABLES
AND RELIABILITY (CONT.)
 A relationship between safety factor and reliability is
established

Extract of simulations
IMPROVEMENTS OF RELIABILITY METHOD FROM
AASHTO 1986/1993 IN MEPDG METHOD

 AASHTO 1993: R= P(ESAL Demand < ESAL

Capacity Over Design Life)
Log(ESALs Demand) = Margin of Safety + Log(ESALs
Capacity)

 MEPDG: R=P(Distress level(i) < Critical

Distress(i) Level Over Design life)
Distress value(i) at desired reliability level = Margin of
Safety + Distress value(i)

Margin of safety =So * ZR

IMPROVEMENTS OF RELIABILITY METHOD FROM
AASHTO 1986/1993 IN MEPDG METHOD (CONT.)

 AASHTO 1986/1993: More theoretical.

 MEPDG: Compares overall variability of

actual pavement performance data of LTPP
calibration sections to predicted
performance.
 MEPDG DISTRESS SIMULATIONS WITH FACTOR
OF SAFETY
 Values for bottom up cracking and rutting obtained from running
MEPDG software
 Material Properties assumed:
Site: Queen Creek Arizona Design Period: 20
years
Initial 2-way AADT: 20,000 with growth rate 4% per
annum
Pavement section: AC Layer: 6”
Granular Base Layer (A-1-10): 10”, 35,000 psi,
0.3
Granular Sub Base (A-3): 15”, 29,000 psi, 0.35
Subgrade Layer: (A-2-6): Semi-infinite, 20,500
psi, 0.35

HMA material Properties: Binder: PG 76-22

E*: NCHRP 1-37A Viscosity Based Model
Effective Binder Content: 11.6%
MEPDG DISTRESS SIMULATIONS WITH
FACTOR OF SAFETY (CONT.)



MEPDG DISTRESS SIMULATIONS WITH FACTOR OF
SAFETY (CONT.)



EVALUATING EFFICACY OF
SIMULATIONS

 Coefficient of variation of probability of failure

(pf)

 Smaller values of COV are desirable and

simulation is deemed appropriate as COV of
probability of failure approaches infinity
RESULTS
FS against Reliability

Extract of
F of S Reliability simulations
Z So P(f) COV. P(f)
1 37.6 0.316003 0 0.624 0.000776
2 66.9 0.437154 0.688614 0.331 0.001422
3 79.7 0.830953 0.574185 0.203 0.001981
12 98.9 2.290368 0.471182 0.011 0.009482
13 99.5 2.575829 0.43246 0.005 0.014107
24 99.9 3.719016 0.371123 0.001 0.031607
25 99.9 3.719016 0.37589 0.001 0.031607
 DISCUSSIONS
AASHTO’s suggested levels of reliability for various functional
classifications
Functional Classification Recommended level of reliability

Urban Rural
Interstate and other freeways 85-99.9 80-99.9
Principal arterials 80-99 75-95
Collectors 80-95 75-95
Local 50-80 50-80

Safety factor implication of AASHTO’s suggested reliability for various

functional classifications of roadways
Functional Classification Recommended level of reliability

Urban Rural

Interstate and other freeways 3.5-20 3.0-20

Principal arterials 3.0-12 2.5-6.0
Collectors 3.0-6.5 2.5-6.0
Local 1.5-3.0 1.5-3.0
 DISCUSSIONS (CONT.)
 Range of F.S for Pavements = 3-20

 Safety factors for various engineering works (The Engineering Toolbox)

Equipment Factor of Safety
Aircraft components 1.5 - 2.5
Bolts 8.5
Engine components 6-8
Turbine components - static 6-8
Heavy duty shafting 10 - 12
Structural steelwork in buildings 4-6
Structural steelwork in bridges 5-7
Lifting equipment - hooks 8-9
Pressure vessels 3.5 - 6
Boilers 3.5 - 6
DISCUSSIONS (CONT.)
 Standard deviation values (So) were obtained
from

 AASHTO recommended a range of 0.40 to

0.50 for flexible pavements.

 Range of standard deviation provided is

highly in doubt.

 So back-calculated values range from about

0.30 to 0.70.
DISCUSSIONS (CONT.)

Bottom-up Cracking Rutting

100
95
90
85
80

b
e

y
R

b
e

t
75

l
i

i
l
i
t
l
i

i
l
i

70

65
60

50 55

40 45
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
DISCUSSION (CONT.)

 Shortfalls of MEPDG reliability method:

Use of data not specific to site conditions
(Predetermined variability values obtained
from a performance database).
ADDITIONAL WORKS THAT COULD BE
PERFORMED
 VRTs to reduce the variance or the error of the
estimated output variable (Halder, 2000).

 Use of other simulation techniques e.g. Latin

hypercube sampling and Rosenblueth’s 2K+1
point estimate.

 Adopting other probabilistic methods e.g.

method of moments, applied by Zang and co.
(Zang et al., 2006) or Taylor expansion.
CONCLUSION
 Presentation critiques the reliability concept adopted
in AASHTO 1986/1993 pavement design guide.

 Reliability values recommended in AASHTO 1986/1993

pavement design guide represents a factor of safety
of range 1-20.

 Back-calculated values of So range from about 0.30 to

0.70.

 Approach in MEPDG is more realistic.

 Other simulation methods or even probabilistic

methods could be attempted.