Civil Engineering Program
CVE 4001
Introduction to Pavement Design
Flexible Pavement Design
Group Members:
ATA ÜNLÜ - 2176154
EFE EKİNCİ - 2153005
MAHMUT YURT - 2153286
MEHMET ŞAHİN - 2017432
MOOMTAZ DAHIR MALLIM - 2202059
Date of Submission: 06.05.2020
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................4
2. AASHTO 1993 ...................................................................................................................4
3. Asphalt Institute Method...................................................................................................19
4. Definitions.........................................................................................................................25
5. Discussion .........................................................................................................................25
6. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................26
2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Analysis Period (years) ..............................................................................................4
Figure 2: ESAL vs. Year Graph..................................................................................................6
Figure 3: Suggested Levels of Reliability for Various Functional Classifications ....................6
Figure 4: Standart Normal Deviate (ZR) Values Corresponding to Selected Levels of
Reliability ...................................................................................................................................7
Figure 5: Chart for Estimating Structural Layer Coefficient of Dense-Graded Asphalt
Concrete Based on the Elastic (Resilient) Modulus ..................................................................9
Figure 6: Variation in Granular Base Layer Coefficient (a2) with Various Base Strength
Parameters ...............................................................................................................................10
Figure 7: Variation in Granular Subbase Layer Coefficient (a3) with Various Subbase
Strength Parameters ................................................................................................................10
Figure 8: Quality of Drainage..................................................................................................11
Figure 9: Recommended mi Values for Modifying Structural Layer Coefficients of Untreated
Base and Subbase Materials in Flexible Pavements ...............................................................11
Figure 10: Environmental Serviceability Loss Versus Time Graph.........................................13
Figure 11: Maximum, Minimum and Average Temperatures ..................................................19
Figure 12: Design Chart A-7....................................................................................................20
Figure 13: Design Chart A-8....................................................................................................21
Figure 14: Design Chart A-9....................................................................................................21
Figure 15: Design Chart A-10..................................................................................................22
Figure 16: Minimum Thickness of Asphalt Concrete over Emulsified Asphalt Bases .............22
Figure 17: Design Chart A-11..................................................................................................23
Figure 18: Design Chart A-12..................................................................................................24
3
1. Introduction
In this step, two methods were used to design the flexible pavement and these methods were
the AASHTO 1993 design process and the Asphalt Institute process.
According to AASHTO 1993, flexible pavement design process include two main steps:
• Design Requirements
• Design Process
Each of the two steps contain their own number of inputs for the design process like the
design variables which includes the time constraints, traffic, reliability and environmental
effects which are major inputs for the design.
The Asphalt Institute Method is also used in the design of flexible pavement and this method
includes a basis of elastic multi-layer analysis of pavement structure based on two specific
stress conditions:
• Compressive stress on the subgrade
• Tensile and compressive stress-strain components in asphalt layer.
2. AASHTO 1993
Time Constraints
Analysis period is chosen as 20 years according to table below (Figure 1) because highway
conditions are decided to be low-volume paved. Maximum Performance Period is chosen as
15 years.
Figure 1: Analysis Period (years)
4
Traffic
80 =
̂80 365
80 = 0.45 0.9 3485.1 365 = 515184
where
80: ℎ
:
:
̂80: −
As it is mentioned in Step 1, DD and DL were found by Table 6.15 and Table 6.16 from AASTHO (1986). ̂80 was found summation of Vehicles*LEF
numbers which is also mentioned in Step 1.
The traffic growth is assumed to be 2% / year. These roads are designed for 20-year life time
and assumed to have rehabilitation activity at 15 year. Due to these reasons, traffic analysis is
needed to build these data. According to formula below and assumed values, traffic growth
was found at the end of 15 year. In Figure 2, assumed traffic growth graph has been shown.
Traffic before any maintenance (15 year)
(1 + 0.02)15 − 1
80 = 515184 = 8909300
0.02
5
1.40E+07
1.20E+07
1.00E+07
8.00E+06
ESAL
6.00E+06
4.00E+06
2.00E+06
0.00E+00
0 5 10 Year 15 20 25
Figure 2: ESAL vs. Year Graph
Reliability:
The road is known to be a rural area. Also, the road is an interstate road between Mersin and
Silifke. Due to these known data, recommended level of reliability is between 80% and
99.9% according to Figure 3. By using two stage strategy, level of reliability (R) was chosen
to be 95%. For 95% of reliability level, standard normal deviate number (ZR) was found to be
-1.645 from Figure 4.
Figure 3: Suggested Levels of Reliability for Various Functional Classifications
1
= 0.90 = 0.95
2
6
Figure 4: Standart Normal Deviate (ZR) Values Corresponding to Selected Levels of Reliability
Pavement type was decided to be flexible at the start of the project. For flexible pavements,
there are two variation. These variations are usually decided with experience. In this project,
it is decided to be S0 = 0.45 due to traffic variation assumption.
Serviceability
Terminal serviceability (pt) in highways is decided to be 2.5. Initial serviceability (p0) is
assumed to be 4.6, which needs to be close to 5. Change between serviceability index was
found by difference between initial serviceability and terminal serviceability. Change
between serviceability index is a function of traffic, climate and soil.
∆ = 0− = 4.6 − 2.5 = 2.1
Effective Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus
Soil Resilient Modulus were given in MPa in the project and needed to be converted into psi
because in the formula its unit is psi.
Mersin Soil Resilient Modulus
Soil Condition (MPa) (psi)
Wet 25 3626
Dry 45 6527
Frost Heave 175 25382
Spring Thaw 35 5076
7
The frozen season (from mid-January to mid-February) is 1 month long, the spring-thaw
season (mid-February to March) is 0.5 months long, the wet periods (March through May and
mid-September through mid-November) total 5 months, and the dry periods (June through
mid-September and mid-November through mid-January) total 5.5 months.
Relative
Month Roadbed Soil Modulus Damage
MR (psi) uf
6527 0.167
January
25382 0.007
25382 0.007
February
5076 0.299
3626 0.652
March
3626 0.652
3626 0.652
April
3626 0.652
3626 0.652
May
3626 0.652
6527 0.167
June
6527 0.167
6527 0.167
July
6527 0.167
6527 0.167
August
6527 0.167
6527 0.167
September
3626 0.652
3626 0.652
October
3626 0.652
3626 0.652
November
6527 0.167
6527 0.167
December
6527 0.167
Summation = 8.662
Average = 0.361
MR = 4678 psi
(Subgrade)
= 1.18 108 ∗ −2.32
8
For example, January first half’s relative damage was calculated as
= 1.18 ∗ 108 ∗ 6527−2.32 = 0.167
MR (subgrade) was found as = (1.018∗10.3618)1⁄−2.32 = 4678
Pavement Materials Layer Characterization
Asphalt Concrete: EAC = 400000 psi
Granular Base: EBS = 30000 psi
Granular Subbase: ESB = 11000 psi
These values are typical average values for each value that have been used in pavements.
Normally, these numbers can change according to mixture properties such as gradation,
cement type etc. in order to find structural number, thickness of each layer, layer coefficient
and drainage factors. Structural layer coefficients are determined using Figure 5, 6 and 7.
Determination of coefficients were shown using red arrows.
Figure 5: Chart for Estimating Structural Layer Coefficient of Dense-Graded Asphalt Concrete
Based on the Elastic (Resilient) Modulus
9
Figure 6: Variation in Granular Base Layer Coefficient (a2) with Various Base Strength Parameters
Figure 7: Variation in Granular Subbase Layer Coefficient (a3) with Various Subbase Strength
Parameters
a1 = 0.42, a2 = 0.14 and a3 = 0.08 are found according to figures above.
10
Drainage
Figure 8: Quality of Drainage
Figure 9: Recommended mi Values for Modifying Structural Layer Coefficients of Untreated Base
and Subbase Materials in Flexible Pavements
It is assumed that drainage quality is good and percent of time pavement structure is exposed
to moisture levels approaching saturation is 1-5%. The coefficient should be in between 1.25
to 1.15. Therefore, modifying coefficient (m) is assumed 1.2.
11
Design Alternative
∆
log10 [ 4.2 − 1.5 ]
log10 18 = ∗ 0 + 9.36 ∗ log10( + 1) − 0.20 + + 2.32 ∗ log10 − 8.07
1094
0.40 +
( + 1)5.19
W18 = 8909300
ZR = -1.645
S0 = 0.45
∆PSI = 2.1
SN = 5.6
Maximum Performance Period was determined as 15 years so W18 was calculated as 8909300
in the fifteenth year. Standard normal deviate (ZR) was selected as -1.645. S0 was considered
as 0.45. ∆PSI was found as 2.1. MR was calculated as 4678 psi.
2.1
log10 8909300 = −1.645 ∗ 0.45 + 9.36 ∗ log10( + 1) − 0.20 + 0.40 + (
log10 [4.2 − 1.5] + 2.32 ∗ log10 4678 − 8.07 1094
+ 1)5.19
Using excel solver, SN was calculated as 5.6 using formula above.
12
Initial SN = 5.6
Maximum Possible Performance Period (years) = 15
Design Serviceability Loss, ∆PSI = p0 - pt = 4.6 - 2.5 = 2.1
2 3 4 5 6
Trial Total Serviceability Corresponding Allowable Corresponding
1 Performance Loss Due to Swelling Serviceability Loss Cumulative Performance
Iteration Period and Frost Heave Due to Traffic Traffic Period
No. (years) ∆PSISW,FH ∆PSITR (18-kip ESAL) (years)
1 8 0.54 1.56 4669531 8.4
Column No. Description of Procedures
2 Estimated by the designer. It should be less than Maximum Possible
Performance Period.
3 Using estimated value from Column 2 with Figure 10, the total serviceability
loss due to swelling and frost heave is determined.
Figure 10: Environmental Serviceability Loss Versus Time Graph
13
4 Subtract environmental serviceability loss (Column 3) from design total
serviceability loss to determine corresponding serviceability loss due to traffic.
∆PSITR = 2.1 – 0.54 = 1.56
5 Determined from nomograph equation keeping all inputs constant (except for
use of traffic serviceability loss from Column 4).
W18 = 4669531
ZR = -1.645
S0 = 0.45
∆PSITR = 1.56
SN = 5.6
ZR, S0 numbers are known and do not change in design process. ∆PSITR was found as 1.56.
SN was calculated as 5.6. MR was calculated as 4678 psi.
1.56
18 = −1.645 ∗ 0.45 + 9.36 ∗ log10(5.6 + 1) − 0.20 + log10 [4.2 − 1.5] + 2.32 ∗ log10 4678 − 8.07 1094
0.40 + (5.6 + 1)5.19
Using excel solver, W18 was found as 4669531 using formula above.
6 Using the traffic from Column 5, estimate net performance period from
80 Figure 2.
= 4669531 = (1 + 0.02) − 1 515184 → = 8.4 0.02
It should be checked that if the assumption about maximum possible performance period is
true or not. Since the difference between trial performance period and corresponding
performance period is less than one, the iteration was stopped.
14
Thickness of the Layers
=11+222+333
a1, a2, a3 and m values were found in the beginning of the report. Data below is showing
what was obtained from beginning of the report.
a1 = 0.42 a2 = 0.14 a3 = 0.08 m = 1.2
For the ease of the solution, it is assumed that m2 and m3 is equal to m because drainage
system is looked as a one single system.
15
Thickness of Asphalt Concrete Surface
Thickness design should be started from top. For the asphalt concrete layer thickness design,
the solution should be done according to base layer because base layer is going to carry
asphalt concrete layer.
Granular Base: EBS = 30000 psi
*MR must be used as MR of the granular base layer.
W18 = 4669531
ZR = -1.645
S0 = 0.45
∆PSITR = 1.56
SN1 = 2.8
MR = 30000 psi
1.56
log10 4669531 = −1.645 ∗ 0.45 + 9.36 ∗ log10( + 1) − 0.20 +
0.40 + (
log10 [4.2 − 1.5]
+ 2.32 ∗ log 30000 − 8.07 1094
10
+ 1)5.19
Using excel solver, SN1 was calculated as 2.8.
∗=
1 2.8= =6.7~ 7′′
1 1 0.42
1 in is approximately 25 mm. In most of the designs 25 mm is the maximum aggregate size
that can be placed and the construction equipments are not capable of calculating less than 1
in. That’s why the rounding is made.
According to rounded D1, SN1 number must be corrected.
1∗= 1∗ 1∗=0.42∗7=2.94
16
Thickness of Base Material
The base layer and asphalt concrete layer are going to be carried by the subbase layer.
Granular Subbase: ESB = 11000 psi
*MR must be used as MR of the granular subbase layer.
W18 = 4669531
ZR = -1.645
S0 = 0.45
∆PSITR = 1.56
SN2 = 4.2
MR = 11000 psi
1.56
log10 4669531 = −1.645 ∗ 0.45 + 9.36 ∗ log10( + 1) − 0.20 +
0.40 + (
log10 [4.2 − 1.5]
+ 2.32 ∗ log 11000 − 8.07 1094
10
+ 1)5.19
Using excel solver, SN2 was calculated as 4.2.
− ∗ 4.2 − 2.94
2 1
∗= = = 7.5 ~ 8′′
2 ∗ 2 0.14 ∗ 1.2
Same rounding process is applicable for this calculation so number should be rounded up.
After correcting D2 number, SN2 must be corrected as well.
2∗= 2∗ 2∗∗ 2 =0.14∗8∗1.2=1.34
17
Thickness of Subbase Material
*
3∗ can be calculated from summations of SN which is equal to 5.6.
=5.6= 3= 1∗+ 2∗+ 3 3 3 =2.94+1.34+0.08∗ 3∗1.2
3 = 13.8 ~ 14′′
Found number should be rounded up.
3∗ = 3∗ 3∗∗ 3 =0.08∗14∗1.2=1.34
= 1∗ + 2∗ + 3∗ = 2.94 + 1.34 + 1.34 = 5.6
18
3. Asphalt Institute Method
Asphalt Institute Method is generally used structural design of different asphalt layers such as
concrete surface courses, emulsified asphalt surface courses, asphalt concrete base, untreated
aggregate base and subbase courses.
For this method, same Subgrade Resilient Modulus (MR = 4678 psi = 32 MPa) and
Equivalent 80 kN Single Axle Load (EAL = 4669531) for 8.4 year has been used which was
found in AASHTO 1993.
Average temperature values were found from Turkish State Meteorological Service webpage.
Data is shown in Figure 11. Mean Annual Average Temperature was calculated as 19.6 °C.
Due to temperature is between 7 °C and 24 °C, values from MAAT 15.5 °C charts were used
in the project.
Figure 11: Maximum, Minimum and Average Temperatures
19
Full-Depth Asphalt Concrete Pavement
MR = 32 MPa
MAAT = 19.6 °C
Design Traffic = 4.7x106
Figure 12: Design Chart A-7
Full depth asphalt concrete design thickness is equal to 330 mm (13 in.) asphalt concrete
surface and base.
20
Emulsified Asphalt Base Pavement
MR = 32 MPa
MAAT = 19.6 °C
Design Traffic = 4.7x106
Figure 13: Design Chart A-8
Figure 14: Design Chart A-9
21
Figure 15: Design Chart A-10
Figure 13, 14 and 15 are showing design charts for 15.5 °C. Using Subgrade Resilient
Modulus (MR) and Equivalent 80 kN Single Axle Load (EAL), total thickness of the asphalt
layers was found.
Type I 340 mm 13.4 in. from Chart A-8
Type II 390 mm 15.4 in. from Chart A-9
Type III 515 mm 20.3 in. from Chart A-8
Figure 16: Minimum Thickness of Asphalt Concrete over Emulsified Asphalt Bases
22
The depth of the emulsified asphalt base = The total thickness – Minimum required thickness
of asphalt concrete.
Thickness of
Minimum Thickness Emulsified
Emulsified Asphalt Total Thickness Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Base
Base Type mm in. mm in. mm in.
Type II 390 15.4 75 3.0 315 12.4
Type III 515 20.3 75 3.0 440 17.3
Untreated Aggregate Base
MR = 32 MPa
MAAT = 19.6 °C
Design Traffic = 4.7x106
Figure 17: Design Chart A-11
For a 150 mm (5.9 in.) base
320 mm (12.6 in.) asphalt concrete
150 mm (5.9 in.) untreated aggregate base
470 mm (18.5 in.) total thickness
23
Figure 18: Design Chart A-12
For a 300 mm (11.8 in.) base
280 mm (11 in.) asphalt concrete
150 mm (5.9 in.) untreated aggregate base
150 mm (5.9 in.) untreated aggregate subbase
580 mm (22.8 in.) total thickness
24
4. Definitions
Crusher Run: Crushed bank run contains sand, dirt and up to 2" stone. This item is brown
and looks like an old dirt road when applied and compacted. Recommended to be put down
when dry weather is forecasted until surface can be compacted.
Pit Run: Pit run gravel is an unmanufactured gravel which is dug out of the bank. It has
rocks up to 12″, but typically 6″ and less. It is used for a base for roads and driveways and
should be placed in layers 12″ thick or more and it must be machine levelled.
Bank Run: The bank run gravel is dug out of the ground at the sand and gravel processing
site. Rocks, dirt, silt and sand may be present. Fine, medium or coarse bank run is selected to
suit its use as a driveway subbase, base for roads, under slabs, select fill, trench and septic
backfill.
Surface Treatment: An asphalt surface treatment (AST) is a process consisting of a thin
layer of asphalt concrete formed by the application of emulsified asphalt or emulsified
asphalt with aggregate to protect or restore an existing roadway surface.
5. Discussion
As discussion of this step some major and minor points can be mentioned. To illustrate some
major points, if obtained corresponding performance period does not satisfy and needs more
duration, the process should be repeated by changing material properties. Also, different
elastic modules should be chosen for different layers. Moreover, the subgrade could be
improved if it is needed. In addition, the thicknesses which obtained from “Asphalt Institute
Method and ASSHTO 1993” could be compared with each other. To illustrate some minor
points, most of the design charts are in sensitive scales. Therefore, sometimes it is very hard
to read the values that correspond in the design charts and it could cause some minor changes
in the data results. To prevent that, a ruler and magnifying glass could be used when reading
data from the design charts to obtain more precise data.
25
6. Conclusions
As a conclusion of the second step of the overall project which is aimed to use of flexible
pavement design Mersin-Silifke is D400 two lane highway in Mersin had been done in this
report. The report consists of two main stage. These are AASHTO 1993 and Asphalt Institute
design parts. Flexible pavement design and calculations (Tables and Graphs) had been done
by using Microsoft Excel. Some assumptions about selecting parameters which are used in
structural design had been done by some research. All required factors and formulas were
used properly to reach the most accurate results.
26
