CHAPTER 8

Flexible Pavement Design

 Pavement Design Methods

• Empirical
– Standard Cross-Sections
• Regression Methods
– AASHTO
• Mechanistic-Empirical
– Asphalt Institute
 Review of Major Flexible
Pavement Distress

• Load related distress

– Fatigue (alligator cracking)
– Rutting
• Environment/material related distress
– Thermal cracking
– Bleeding
– Stripping
1993 AASHTO Structural Design
Step-by-Step
Design Equation - 1986 Revision
(1993 equation is the same)
 The steps involved in AASHTO design
• The steps involved in designing a flexible pavement
using the AASHTO design equations are as follows:
1. Determine the effective resilient modulus of the
subgrade.
2. Select the design serviceability loss.
3. Estimate the total number of 80 kN equivalent single-
axle loads for the design period.
4. Select a level of reliability and the overall standard
deviation.
5. Determine the pavement structural number.
6. Select the layer material type and determine the
layer thickness.
 AASHTO ’93 Flexible Pavement Design Variables

• Time (Design Life)

• Traffic (Total Design Life ESAL)

• Reliability (“Safety Factor”)

• Serviceability (ΔPSI)

• Soil Resilient Modulus

• Structure Number (SN)

 Time (Design Life)

• Performance Period
– Period of time that the initial pavement structure will last
before it requires rehabilitation
– Pavement deteriorates from the initial serviceability to the
terminal serviceability.
– Designer or Government Agency selects the duration
(typically 20 yrs).
• Analysis Period
– Time period that any design strategy must cover
– Can be equal to or greater than performance period
– Include the initial pavement service life plus one
rehabilitation .
 Pavement Variability

• Materials – properties
• Design – traffic, testing, climate
• Construction – thickness
• Performance – actual vs. predicted
 Reliability (“Safety Factor”)
•The predicted distress at the end of a design period varies depending on:
•The variability of predicted traffic and
•The quality control on materials and construction,
•It is more reasonable to use a probabilistic approach based on the
reliability concept .

• Incorporates some degree of certainty(probability) into the

design process to ensure that the various design alternatives
will last the analysis period.
Loss of Serviceability
 Soil Resilient Modulus
(Seasonal Variation)

The effective roadbed soil resilient modulus is an

equivalent modulus that would result in the same
damage if seasonal modulus values were actually
used.
 Structural Number (SN)
• SN = a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3
• Where:
• Layer Coefficients (ai)
• Drainage Coefficients (mi)
• Minimum Layer Thicknesses (Di)

• Design: use design SN number to calculate minimum

layer thickness Di
 Layer Coefficients (ai)

• Relative ability of a unit thickness of a given

material to function as a structural
component in a pavement.
– it represents the relative performance of different
materials as pavement layers
 Drainage Coefficients (mi)

• The layer coefficients of granular base and

subbase layer need to be modified based on the
quality of drainage and the availability of
moisture
• Determined according to
– the length of time for water to be removed from
bases and subbases and depends primarily on their
permeability
– the percentage of time pavement structure is
exposed to moisture levels approaching saturation
Minimum Layer Thicknesses (Di)
 Advantages & Limitations of
AASHTO Procedure
• Advantages:
– Straightforward
– Inclusion of reliability and standard deviation
– Can be applied to a variety of traffic, climate, material
Condition
• Limitations
– Empirical-developed to specific condition over a short
period of time
– The use of effective resilient modulus and layer coefficient
Concept
– ESAL : based on limited inspection
– Limited materials and subgrade
 Flexible Pavement Design Problem 1
• Design a new flexible pavement for a major interstate
highway using the following conditions:
• Pavement location: Urban
• Pavement functional classification: Interstate
• Number of lanes: 3 lanes in each direction
• Traffic distribution: Assume 80% of the loading occurs in
the design lane
• Annual growth rate: Assume 2%
• Design period: Investigate 20, 30 and 40 year design
periods
• Construction Materials:
– Surface course: 12.5 mm (nominal maximum aggregate) with E
= 3,447 MPa
 Example (cont’d)
– Binder course: Dense-graded HMA mix with a nominal
maximum aggregate size of 25 mm (1 inch). Use E =
3,447 MPa (500,000 psi)
– Base course: Crushed aggregate with MR = 193 MPa
(28,000 psi)
– Subbase course: None used
• Subgrade:
– MR = 103 MPa (15,000 psi) in the dry months of May
through October
– MR = 86 MPa (12,500 psi) in the wet months of
November through April
 Example (cont’d)
– Overall serviceability loss: po - pt = 4.5 - 3.0 = 1.5
– Reliability: Investigate three levels: R = 90%, R = 95%, R
= 99%.
– So: 0.50
– Traffic count:
– Single unit trucks (assume 0.40 ESALs per truck) =
1872/day
– Double unit trucks (assume 1.00 ESALs per truck) =
1762/day
– Truck trains - trucks with more than 2 units (assume
1.75 ESALs per truck) = 247/day
 Solution

• ESALs per year

• This step involves converting the daily traffic
volume into an annual ESAL amount.
Pavements are typically designed for the
critical lane or "design lane", which accounts
for traffic distribution.
• ESALs per year = (Vehicles/day) (Lane
Distribution Factor) (days/yr) (ESALs/Vehicle)
 Solution (cont’d)

• Singles: (1872/day) (0.8) (365) (0.40) = 218,650 ESALs/yr

• Doubles: (1762/day) (0.8) (365) (1.00) = 514,504 ESALs/yr
• Trains: (247/day) (0.8) (365) (1.75) = 126,217 ESALs/yr
• Total = 859,371 ESALs/yr
• Rounded total = 860,000 ESALs/yr
• Design ESALs

(1  r )  1
N

Multiplier 
r
Solution (cont’d)
 Solution (cont’d)

• Calculate the Effective Subgrade Support :

• Calculating a weighted average subgrade resilient modulus
based on the relative pavement damage.  Because lower
values of subgrade resilient modulus result in more pavement
damage, lower values of subgrade resilient modulus are
weighted more heavily. The relative damage equation used in
the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures is:
Solution (cont’d)
 Solution (cont’d)
• Use the 1993 AASHTO Empirical Equation
Solution (cont’d)
Solution (cont’d)
 Solution (cont’d)
• In this particular example, which only shows one set of
possible solutions, the HMA surface course and base course
layer depths were kept constant and the HMA binder
course depth was varied depending upon requirements. 
• Change in reliability level from 90% to 99% results in a SN
increase of about 1.0 and a resultant increase in HMA
thickness of about 55 mm. 
• It is interesting to note that in most empirical design
procedures HMA, no matter what the specific mix
designation or size, is treated equally. 
• Here, the 12.5 mm Superpave surface course and the 25
mm dense-graded binder course are structurally
equivalent.
 Problem 2
A flexible pavement for an urban interstate highway is
to be designed to carry 2 million ESALs. The water
drains from within the pavement in about 1 week and
the pavement structure is exposed to moisture levels
approximately saturation 30 percent of the time
– EAC @ 20oC = 3100MPa (450 ksi)
– MRbase = 210MPa (31ksi)
– MRsubbase = 93MPa (13.5ksi)
– MRsubgrade = 62MPa (9ksi)

Find the design pavement thickness using AASHTO

design procedure
Empirical design

ERA DESIGN CHART

Properties of Unbound Materials and codes
(ERA 2002)
(ERA 2002)
• ERA note:
1.Although the thicknesses of layers should
follow the design charts whenever possible,
some limited substitution of materials
between subbase and selected fill is allowable
based on the structural number principles
outlined in the AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures
2.Where substitution is allowed, a note is
included with the design chart.
 Design Example

• Assume that traffic class T8 has been derived (with

a total of ESAs on the order of 20 millions over the
design period).
• From Table 10-1 given above, for that class of
traffic, it is readily apparent that the use of the
design charts in the catalog of structures is
narrowed down to Charts 4 through 7.
• From the same table, without further information
regarding the subgrade and the materials, it would
also appear that any type of surfacing is possible,
as well as several types of roadbase.
 Design Example (cont’d)

• The subgrade strength has reasonably been

ascertained to be represented by CBRs
CBR in the
range of 5 to 7 The subgrade strength
class to be assigned to this project is therefore
S3.
 Design Example (cont’d)
The following preliminary information has been derived
from the investigations and simple cost comparison:
•The materials which may be considered for cement- or
lime-stabilization have relatively low percentages of fines
and low plasticity, thus making cement stabilization more
promising.
•Granular subbase materials are available in sufficient
quantities and cement stabilization of the subbase is
uneconomical when compared to bank-run materials.
•All other materials entering the composition of the
possible pavement structures are available, albeit in
various quantities and associated transport/construction
costs.
 Design Example (cont’d)

• Based on the above, and with the T8/S3

combination of traffic and subgrade strength
classes, the design charts 4 through 7 indicate
the possible alternate pavement structures
given as shown.
Design Example (cont’d)
 Design Example (cont’d)

• Further analyses of recent contracts,

production costs hauling distances and
associated costs have established relative
costs for the various alternate pavement
layers (all costs per m2 and expressed as a
ratio to the highest cost element) as shown .
Design Example: Relative Unit Costs of Materials
Relative Costs of the Possible Alternate Pavement
Structures